“After arguing over evo, I decided I needed to learn more about "ID". So I read the respectable Ph.D proponents of "ID":

Michael Behe
William Dembski
Jonathan Wells

and founder Phillip E. Johnson.

My conclusion, scientifically speaking, is: What a load of crap! It's the old "Argument by Design" with a new paint job. They don't do anything but attempt to refute & criticize the Scientific Method of Evolution. "ID" Is faith, why try to push out science? Why didn't someone here warn me that I was fighting blind faith????

In regards to public schools, besides Georgia, I believe Kansas has fallen and Ohio is fighting

This is what "ID" proponents to, spread there message to school boards and politicians, nothing else. "ID" wording almost made it into the "No Child Beyond" Bill.

I usually respect everyones opinion. However I will not respect anyone who attempts to call blind faith science and attempts to undermine scientific research and acceptance.

Thanks. I feel better now.”

“What does this have to do with backpacking?”

“Oh great one who leads by perfect example, please forgive me.”

“Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.”

“I'm just mad you decided to start a new thread for this. What's wrong with the Scopes Monkey Trial thread?”

“Scopes Monkey is irrelevant and I didn't want to deal with it. they are related but different, no? I think proponents of "ID" are far more scary. Should I paste this to the other thread?”

“Bullsh*t. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation.”

“Mutt - tell me your reason for faith”

“Yeah, Mutt. The idea of faith in evolution is interesting to me.”

“God created us, we rebelled, he manifested himself as a sacrifice for our sins to give us a *free* gift of salvation. That's my reason for faith.”

“err... uhhmmm.

Okey doke.”

“Is this thread evidence against 'Intelligent Design' in relation to human evolution (just asking)?”

“If you didn't know me, you'd think I was a fundi, right? I've been arguing with them lately. Particularly about the Grand Canyon. Didn't you know that it was the result of the Flood? Oh yes, the evidence fits the Flood much better than it does erosion.

Well, see y'all in a week or two.”

“bearmagnent, apart from your angry cries for monopolistic teachings on science, if you REALLY read the guys you just listed, which from your statements you just made it appears you didn't, you'll find most of them are indeed evolutionists. If you step back and use your noggin and think about it, presupposing there is no intelligent design behind nature and purposely blinding yourself to this notion is not good science. Intelligent Design does not wish to eradicate evolution or have a monopoly on thought, it merely wants scientific evidence to be shown alongside current evolutionary thinking that presupposes there is no apparent intelligence in nature. Regardless, peace to you my friend!”

“Err Uhhmmm Okay. Bye then.”

“Hey Buck, presupposing intelligent design is bad science.”

“Hey Buck, presupposing intelligent design is bad science.

Yes, and I was hoping someone would pick up on this because presupposing intelligence, and presupposing NO intelligence are in effect the same thing.

Now, Intelligent Design presupposes intelligence but not at the EXCLUSION of contrary views being taught. ID welcomes contrasting views of the same scientific data. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of current evolutionary thought. Evolution wants a monopoly on the presupposition that there is no intelligence. What kind of honest "science" is that?”

“Atually, Evolutionary science should be taught without supposition of either intelligent or not. Let people come to their own conclusions about that based on their religious teachings. That has no place in public school, which is really the issue.”

“In other words, study of evolutionary workings does not suppose what the creation of these processes is, as there is no evidence available to the scientist one way or the other.”

“Atually, Evolutionary science should be taught without supposition of either intelligent or not.

Then why are they so adamant against excluding science that suggests intelligence? There is a presuppostion there is no intelligence even if scientific data suggests it.

When you're hiking and see a cairn-like pile of rocks, shall you presuppose it wasn't put there by an intelligent hiker, even if you're unsure? If so, do you really care who the hiker was at that point, would it be your sole goal to find out who this hiker is? I think not.

If an archeologist sees a certain pattern in the soil that suggests worth digging into because it might reveal a past civilization, shall it assume it's just a natural occurance, or could there be intelligence behind the patterns, like a chip of pottery, an arrowhead, etc. At that point, are they trying to determine what the source is, or merely recognizing it and investigating evidence?

If SETI picks up signals in space, like a sequence of prime numbers, shall it write it off as random space chatter, or worth looking into? If so, are they trying to religiously worship whatever it is that is the source of the prime number sequence at this time? No, they are using science to investigate obvious intelligence.

How much greater and more complex is the genetic code, and the basic protein molecule, and the irreducible complexities in many natural functions, than a mere cairn, or sequence of simple prime numbers. Shall we just turn our eyes on this stuff? If one side presupposes no intelligence, then let's let side-by-side theory based only on science to presuppose intelligence and see who has better science, and learn from each other instead of squelching each other?

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design, as religion is adhering to the specific precepts of a certain god or gods and seeking to worship a specific entity(ies).

Again, if there is a chemical law that states all chemicals will react a certain way, then for this chemical law there must be a law-giver. Determing there is a law-giver is much different than suggesting one must worship this law-giver.”

“Religion has absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design

Hah! I lied. I'm going to make one more assertion. That's got to be one of the most elementary and most refuted assertions YEC make. Bacpac, you're going to have to do better than that to elicit meaningful dialogue (yeah like that's your goal)

Okay, now I'm outta here.”

“Okay, Mutt, which religion does ID suppose? I'm really curious!”

“The thing is that you're drawing a line in the sand, saying, "after this point, we cannot believe that this complexity could have evolved other than by intelligent creation." This is even when there are other, testable, and scientific explanations. In other words, you're jumping the gun at pointing at life as a sure-fire sign of intelligent design.

In the evolutionary process, random genetic variation is subjected to natural selection by the environment, which itself is already structured (by whom, what or not, we have no evidence of, and this - ultimately - is a religious question). In fact, researchers are beginning to use Darwinian processes, implemented in computers or in vitro, to evolve complex systems and to provide solutions to design problems in ways that are beyond the power of other intelligent agents.

In this way, randomness - chance - is testable as sufficient for evolution. At some point, if we discover a place where it is no longer possible, and can be proven impossible - which we have NOT yet - intelligent design might need to be revisted.”

“Phaedrus, if you can look at Mt. Rushmore and scientifically calculate the odds of this forming naturally through random events and not intelligent design, then you have much greater "faith" than me. How much more complex are the origins of things in nature than mere carvings into a mountain? Quite so. To automatically EXCLUDE intelligent design behind something more complex and obvious than Mt. Rushmore is to limit science. To study BOTH as possibitlies through the same scientific methods, not at the exclusion of either one, would seem to be the most honest approach to scientific discovery.”

“The Newest Evolution of Creationism
Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science.
By Barbara Forrest
thi
The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement's leading figures, asserts that "the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory," its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.

Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."

Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log -- meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of "atheistic naturalism." Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.

The Wedge aims to "renew" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." According to Dembski, intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in "mere" creation, aiming -- in Dembski's words -- "at defeating naturalism and its consequences." This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

"As Christians," writes Dembski, "we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science." Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Behe sees the relevant question as whether "science can make room for religion." At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.

Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars" -- in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a "sense of the Senate" that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.”

“Phaedrus, if you can look at Mt. Rushmore and scientifically calculate the odds of this forming naturally through random events and not intelligent design, then you have much greater "faith" than me. How much more complex are the origins of things in nature than mere carvings into a mountain? Quite so. To automatically EXCLUDE intelligent design behind something more complex and obvious than Mt. Rushmore is to limit science. To study BOTH as possibitlies through the same scientific methods, not at the exclusion of either one, would seem to be the most honest approach to scientific discovery."
Buck
06:04:28 PM

If we could identify a natural process by which mountains in the shape of presidents could reproduce and have a survival advantage over other mountains, you might have a point, Buck. As it stands, your analogy is a red herring.”

“It isn't a red herring because there are things in the genetic and biological code much more complex than something as Mt. Rushmore.

Phaed, even evolutionists would suggest there is "design" in nature, but they would argue it to be "apparent" design and not "real" design. Why not explore both without excluding any scientific evidence suggesting either one? That's all ID is suggesting. I like fly fishing, mostly with dry flies.”

“Re: the reference to Kansas "falling" posted above. Yes, the fundamentalists almost succeeded in overturning the theory of evolution being presented in school. However, there was a huge fight over this, and now you are "allowed" to talk about creationism as an alternative to evolution. As you might guess, some teachers "allow" themselves much more than other teachers.”

“It isn't a red herring because there are things in the genetic and biological code much more complex than something as Mt. Rushmore

Given billions of years and correct conditions, along with a method of selection to prefer a set of traits, it would be incredible to imagine that life isn't as complex as it is!

You analogy is a red herring because it assumes the final product in time, and does not allow for a gradual evolution. In other words, if mountains were capable of evolution, or life was NOT, then you analogy would be sound. It is not.

ID'ers have no way to show that genetic patterns are designed or "independently given" other than speculation and pointing at boundaries of current evolutionary science. These things are not scientific principles, and your sources have been shown to have other motives for their beliefs - those being religious.”

“Hi Dunaden, if I understand things correctly, it wasn't the concept of evolution that was the subject, but it was the "word" evolution. Instead of using the term evolution, they wanted to call it 'biological changes over time' or something silly. That whole thing was absurd, IMHO. Evolution as a term means what it does, and trying to ban the word "evolution" is silly to describe a process is ridiculous. But I may be misinterpreting what's goin' on there because I haven't been following it that closely.”

“In other words, if mountains were capable of evolution, or life was NOT, then you analogy would be sound. It is not.

Of course mountains evolve, not biologically, but through tectonic uplifting and/or erosion.

As for your "religion" claim, that's ridiculous. That's like me saying evolutionists are pushing their "disbelief" in a god.”

“1. Mountains erode. They don't evolve. There is no natural selection favoring mountains with president's faces.

2. As Christians," writes Dembski, "we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science."

He sure SEEMS to be presupposing God and looking to prove him. This means agenda. Also, the fact that they are ignoring scientific venues to advocate their position, in favor of public and political ones points at an agenda.”

“1. Mountains erode. They don't evolve. There is no natural selection favoring mountains with president's faces

Pheadrus, you are a logical dude. Mountains do indeed evolve. Evolve is gradual change over time. And mountains don't just erode, they are also developed and uplifted.

The parallel was with "odds" in nature... the odds of Mt. Rushmore eroding naturally, through random chance, in the form it is now is simply beyond odds, hence when you look at mountain ranges, and then look at Mt. Rushmore, you can conclude, or at least warrant more specific investigation, that it was formed via intelligence and not random chance and the works of nature.

He sure SEEMS to be presupposing God and looking to prove him. This means agenda.

What? Are you SERIOUS? Phaed, shall I quote the anti-religous evolutionists and use THAT as an argument that evolution is an agenda based on atheism? I don't care if an evolutionist is a Christian or an atheist, it has no bearing on scientific data. Do you not realize that many believe in intelligent design theory but not any god(s), as they sincerely believe aliens seeding this earth? My girlfriend's mother believes this very thing. She believes in intelligent design, but certainly she's not religious! To bring into play any individuals personal faith has nothing to do with conclusive scientific results. If so, I would be quoting atheistic evolutionists all day long and arguing an anti-religion agenda they are trying to push.

I would think you above such things, Phaed.”

“The parallel was with "odds" in nature... the odds of Mt. Rushmore eroding naturally, through random chance, in the form it is now is simply beyond odds, hence when you look at mountain ranges, and then look at Mt. Rushmore, you can conclude, or at least warrant more specific investigation, that it was formed via intelligence and not random chance and the works of nature.


And you seem to keep missing my point. Mountains have no method of reproducing desirable traits, and passing them on to offspring. If they did, then the analogy would be good, but it is not.

I would think you above such things, Phaed.

Hello. These people are pushing an agenda. They are not publishing in scientific journals, instead choosing political and public forums. THAT is my point. It is not science.

Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log -- meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of "atheistic naturalism." Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures”

“Sorry - I work in a lab. To Buck's first posting - I am not screaming monolistic teaching, I've entertained several "theories" of evolution. "ID" is not a theory of evolution. Paley's argument was incorrect and so is the updated version. ID seems to just demand that evolution from God be taught in school. Why should it be? But if you don't believe me, then listen to Phillip Johnson:

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate aboutscience. It's about religion and philosophy."

Tell me the science behind "ID"?”

“First - thanks Phrad. Maybe I should just post a thought and see how well you do?

Buck - You're using the old argument (blind watchmaker) which has been completely destroyed. The anology is incorrect.

If you have an open mind read Blind Watchmaker.

And if Phad hasn't said it: science does not attempt to exclude creation, many more scientists believe in it than don't. They just don't believe it should be taught as a "science".

Its faith.”

“BTW,

Empirical data = science

No empirical data = not science”

“Hey bearmagnet, what do you do for a living?”

“I do research in "biologics". I may be more specific but am always wary of PETA & ALF

Unless someone would like to argue with me!!??”

“PETA is the anti-slavery movement of our time. ALF is the underground railroad.

Fascist.”

“LOL! tell me that's a quote from someone?”

“Kidding. Only kidding.”

“I believe...I believe...I believe I'll say good night Charles.”

“Damn. Maybe someone else has a problem with animal research?”

“"Yes, and I was hoping someone would pick up on this because presupposing intelligence, and presupposing NO intelligence are in effect the same thing."

Wrong, simply, flatly wrong on two counts:

1) Evolution does not presuppose NO intelligence, it simply avoids any pre-supposition either way... in fact, as your man points out, evolution is 100% consistent with what he calls the weak version of ID.

#2) If one must choose, pre-supposing intelligent design fails
Occam's razor. Because in positing an intelligence behind appearances, you are introducing a whole new phenomena which, for a scientist, will require explanation and whose rules and laws will require explanation. This doesn't mean it is false, simply that it is less parsimonious than the pre-supposing no intelligent design.

So where did this intelligence come from, why does it exist, how did it come into being? What was the universe like before it existed, and why hasn't it sent me my winning lottery ticket yet?


Personally, I think life - organisms and DNA has an organizing factor to it, that could be called intelligence - depending on how we define it.”

“And you seem to keep missing my point. Mountains have no method of reproducing desirable traits, and passing them on to offspring. If they did, then the analogy would be good, but it is not.


Pheadrus, and you keep missing my OBVIOUS point... natural odds of apparent design in nature. Remember, I'm talking about odds and nature and apparent design. You can calculate odds, whether the apparent design is in physical or biological systems.

Hello. These people are pushing an agenda.

People pushing an agenda? Phaedrus, I can provide countless quotes from evolutionists touting their "religion" and "beliefs" and presupposed notions of naturalism and secular humanism and atheism, and using evolution as their vehicle to do so!

Here's a few "mild" quotes... I'll pull up some juicy ones for ya later since you refuse to look at the "scientific data" and only try and determine any various religious beliefs of scientists behind it. Sorta crazy and immature that is has to come to this kind of reasoning. Here's some quotes from your "scientifically neutral" and "no agenda here, folks" evolutionists:”

“Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation-regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Reference

Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

---------------

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.


"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.



Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8
8 Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.



We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10
10 Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11
11 Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.


And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal-without demonstration-to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12
12 Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13
13 Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.


(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14
14 Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.


The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. [Carl Sagan]
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htm


No rational order of divine intelligence unites species. The natural ties are genealogical along contingent pathways of history.
Stephen Jay Gould

We are glorious accidents of an unpredictable process with no drive to complexity, not the expected results of evolutionary principles that yearn to produce a creature capable of understanding the mode of its own necessary construction.
Stephen Jay Gould

We pass through this world but once.
Stephen Jay Gould

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?
Richard Dawkins

Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are part of the charm of childhood. So is God. Some of us grow out of all three.
Richard Dawkins

Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it.
Richard Dawkins

Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain.
Richard Dawkins


The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight -- that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether [Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, p. 18]
Daniel Dennett

In the beginning, there were no reasons; there were only causes. Nothing had a purpose, nothing has so much as a function; there was no teleology in the world at all. [Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained]”

“It's good to see there is no "anti-intelligence" bias with these evolutionists, ain't it? :Þ”

“I'd love to continue this all with the rest of you, bearmagnent and pedxing, and Phaedrus and others, and we'll pick up from here when I get back. I appreciate the civility in this discussion so far! It's a fascinating subject, no doubt. I'm off to the Lost Coast again for a few days. Take care!”

“are you trying to make a point, or are you trying to get points for quantity?”