-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
In your "many apologetics books and websites," you've never seen this argument? That says a lot about you, and none of it good. I would not brag about the fact that your library of knowledge is so limited that you never read anything outside of your own limited circle.
The volume of books, websites, papers, references, and blogs on this very argument would fill an entire post. It's not my original idea. I mean, I thought of it without having read it from someone else, but others thought of it long before I was even born.
Here's JUST ONE that I was reading. Every day I see probably 3 or 4 examples.
Now, I won't be doing any more of your homework for you.
That is actually exactly what I do believe. The Big Bang theory actually supports "ex nihlo," out of nothing, and plants and animals followed millions of years afterwards by the natural process of evolution.
I have just proven you do NOT understand my theory, since you don't even understand what I believe.
And the fact that you've never heard an argument that is actually ubiquitous even in cyberspace lends to the concept that you have no clue what you're talking about. You may want to quit while you're behind. Or keep digging. I hear if you keep digging, you might actually get to China.
The volume of books, websites, papers, references, and blogs on this very argument would fill an entire post. It's not my original idea. I mean, I thought of it without having read it from someone else, but others thought of it long before I was even born.
Here's JUST ONE that I was reading. Every day I see probably 3 or 4 examples.
Now, I won't be doing any more of your homework for you.
That is actually exactly what I do believe. The Big Bang theory actually supports "ex nihlo," out of nothing, and plants and animals followed millions of years afterwards by the natural process of evolution.
I have just proven you do NOT understand my theory, since you don't even understand what I believe.
And the fact that you've never heard an argument that is actually ubiquitous even in cyberspace lends to the concept that you have no clue what you're talking about. You may want to quit while you're behind. Or keep digging. I hear if you keep digging, you might actually get to China.
T
Tell you what: I'll give you an out. Admit that you misunderstood me, and claimed that I said something which I did not say. If you were not intentional in your mis-statement, I will apologize for accusing you of lying.
(It's "you're," not "your." "You're" is a contraction of "you are." "Your" is possessive. No biggee ... people make that mistake all the time.)
And yes, I'm not sure I would call it an "assumption," but I think you're finally understanding my view.
My understanding of Genesis as myth comes from a reading of the text as poetic, song-like. It's not an "assumption" so much as a redaction, a study, a fruitful reading.
Let me ask you: what "proof" do you have that God intended it to be literal? You have less proof of your interpretation than I have of mine. As "lacking" as my proof may be, at least I have some, which is more than you can say for yours.
And again, your inability to understand is not my failing.
You have called my God a liar. You don't think that's at least as offensive as calling him a writer of fiction? And I'm sorry, but I don't see how calling someone a writer of fiction is offensive.
My God is a brilliant poet, a wise philosopher, a divine being who chooses many different ways to communicate with his creation. God is not offended by being this. You should not be ashamed of him, nor offended of me stating what he is.
You can choose to believe in the same God that I do, or you can choose to believe in a god who lies and / or tricks his creatures. If you choose to believe to be offended, that is your choice. I have no control over what you choose to believe, or how you choose to be offended
I have said this before. Were you not paying attention?
Yes, God CAN do that. For whatever reason, he decided not to do that. God could have created purple humans with six arms. Maybe he did on some other planet, who knows. God CAN do anything. But God chose to do what God DID do: create the universe that he created. The universe in which we live says certain things. It says it is a certain age. I believe in God. I believe that God created the universe. I believe that God does not lie. Therefore, I believe that God created the universe exactly as it says it is created.
Let me ask you this: WHY is there evidence that indicates this planet is billions of years old? Do you think God planted the evidence to trick us? Or did Satan plant the false evidence, and God is unable to remove it, making Satan more powerful than God? Seriously, how do you explain the evidence that says the earth is billions of years old?
By the way, did you read the blog I posted?
F
Diva and chesser have no basis except for their assumptions, that is why they are so insulting to those who do not agree with them.
You cant PROVE God intended somehting to be taken literally, that is like asking someone to PROVE God expects to take literally their was a person named Jesus. You cant prove that as you can disprove it. SO why ask something so foolish. Diva, Prove to me that a stop sign literally means "stop moving". Dont talk about tickets, and implications, nor inference, just Prove it. You can go look up the traffic laws and their definitions, but then I want you to prove those definitions are to be taken literally. See where I am going with this? You would take them literally unless something demanded it to be taken figurality.
Example, Jesus said, Luke 13:31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. 32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected
Jesus called Herod a "fox". He did not say this was to be taken literally, nor figuaritly. Yet the meanig demands it to be figartive. We understand Herod cannot be a fox. So we see it must be a metaphor.
Just as true with Genesis. Unless the meaning of what is being said demands a figurative interpretation, just as with anything else we read, laws, definitions, we are to take them literally.
Nothing in Genesis is out side the scope of God's power. Can he use 24 hours days in creation - YES
Can he Make man full grown if he is all powerful - YES
Can he place the stars light years away, yet make them shine so we can see them now? YES just as he created Man full grown.
Is their scientific evidence the earth is NOT billions of years, yes there is. Is their evidence it is old - YES there is.
So what do you do, believe God and the science that supports what he said. OR the science that says it's not true, and then change the interpretation to figurative, even though NOTHING gives us a reason to do so?
I know what decision you have made, but to act as if everyone who does not do what you did, and throw out anything that does not agree with your text book written by probable atheists, is stupid.
You say over and over, "I don't see how anyone could believe...." , Just like Chesser's argument, "I don't see how Adam could have named....." of course with no scripture, just your opinions and assumptions.
God did not set anything out to trick you, YOUR, i mean you're, I mean, "I", deceiving yourself. As I askes Chesser, whats your strongest argument for an old earth, besides, you just cant see how. Dinosaurs, the sun, moon, dating methods, what? Because as Laodica has shown you, Yom means a normal day, and he shown you other places for this, you cant show where it does not, neither can chessnut. So what's your argument? Just you cant see?
What about the rest of Genesis, did Joseph really go and rule in Egypt? Did Sodom really get destroyed by God? Did 3 Angels really appear to Abraham? If not, then why, if yes, then how do you know it's to be taken literally?
You cant PROVE God intended somehting to be taken literally, that is like asking someone to PROVE God expects to take literally their was a person named Jesus. You cant prove that as you can disprove it. SO why ask something so foolish. Diva, Prove to me that a stop sign literally means "stop moving". Dont talk about tickets, and implications, nor inference, just Prove it. You can go look up the traffic laws and their definitions, but then I want you to prove those definitions are to be taken literally. See where I am going with this? You would take them literally unless something demanded it to be taken figurality.
Example, Jesus said, Luke 13:31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. 32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected
Jesus called Herod a "fox". He did not say this was to be taken literally, nor figuaritly. Yet the meanig demands it to be figartive. We understand Herod cannot be a fox. So we see it must be a metaphor.
Just as true with Genesis. Unless the meaning of what is being said demands a figurative interpretation, just as with anything else we read, laws, definitions, we are to take them literally.
Nothing in Genesis is out side the scope of God's power. Can he use 24 hours days in creation - YES
Can he Make man full grown if he is all powerful - YES
Can he place the stars light years away, yet make them shine so we can see them now? YES just as he created Man full grown.
Is their scientific evidence the earth is NOT billions of years, yes there is. Is their evidence it is old - YES there is.
So what do you do, believe God and the science that supports what he said. OR the science that says it's not true, and then change the interpretation to figurative, even though NOTHING gives us a reason to do so?
I know what decision you have made, but to act as if everyone who does not do what you did, and throw out anything that does not agree with your text book written by probable atheists, is stupid.
You say over and over, "I don't see how anyone could believe...." , Just like Chesser's argument, "I don't see how Adam could have named....." of course with no scripture, just your opinions and assumptions.
God did not set anything out to trick you, YOUR, i mean you're, I mean, "I", deceiving yourself. As I askes Chesser, whats your strongest argument for an old earth, besides, you just cant see how. Dinosaurs, the sun, moon, dating methods, what? Because as Laodica has shown you, Yom means a normal day, and he shown you other places for this, you cant show where it does not, neither can chessnut. So what's your argument? Just you cant see?
What about the rest of Genesis, did Joseph really go and rule in Egypt? Did Sodom really get destroyed by God? Did 3 Angels really appear to Abraham? If not, then why, if yes, then how do you know it's to be taken literally?
T
That's because He didn't intend it to be taken literally. It is true: you can't prove that 2+2=5. But can you "prove" that 2+2=4?
We have given evidence for 2+2 being 4. You reject that evidence. That's fine. But you still can't make 2+2=5.
I see Genesis the same way. I'm sorry you miss the obvious clues. I've posted them already.
I am not familiar with this. Can you provide links?
I believe the words that are so obviously supposed to be taken figuratively, just by the way they are written. And then, it just happens that the scientific evidence that exists agrees with that interpretation.
The ancient Hebrews understood Genesis 1 as Metaphor, even though they had no evidence that the world was billions of years old, or millions, or thousands. They just read the book and understood that God clearly intended it as metaphor.
The early Christians understood it the same way, just by reading it. The way you understand when you read a fairy tale, that when it says "Once upon a time," even if the story is plausible and possible, you know it's not literal. Often, in fact, it's VERY true: it's plausible not because "it actually happened this way once," but "yup, it always happens this way all the time." Metaphor is not lying, it's a Truth that is truer than fact.
The Earth itself says it is billions of years old.
There are four. There is plenty more.
We've shown you many. You want more, stay tuned, I'll keep posting them as I find them.
That one has elements that are both symbolic and literal.
You know, you should take a course in Biblical literature. That would help you learn how to read Scripture, how to tell when God is being literal and when he is being metaphoric (and when he is being both), how to understand it the way the ancient Hebrews understood it. Then you don't have to ask total strangers on the web, but you can figure it out on your own.
A local university might have a class you can audit, or you may be able to find something at a community college. Good luck, and tell me how it goes.
We have given evidence for 2+2 being 4. You reject that evidence. That's fine. But you still can't make 2+2=5.
I see Genesis the same way. I'm sorry you miss the obvious clues. I've posted them already.
I am not familiar with this. Can you provide links?
I believe the words that are so obviously supposed to be taken figuratively, just by the way they are written. And then, it just happens that the scientific evidence that exists agrees with that interpretation.
The ancient Hebrews understood Genesis 1 as Metaphor, even though they had no evidence that the world was billions of years old, or millions, or thousands. They just read the book and understood that God clearly intended it as metaphor.
The early Christians understood it the same way, just by reading it. The way you understand when you read a fairy tale, that when it says "Once upon a time," even if the story is plausible and possible, you know it's not literal. Often, in fact, it's VERY true: it's plausible not because "it actually happened this way once," but "yup, it always happens this way all the time." Metaphor is not lying, it's a Truth that is truer than fact.
The Earth itself says it is billions of years old.
There are four. There is plenty more.
We've shown you many. You want more, stay tuned, I'll keep posting them as I find them.
That one has elements that are both symbolic and literal.
You know, you should take a course in Biblical literature. That would help you learn how to read Scripture, how to tell when God is being literal and when he is being metaphoric (and when he is being both), how to understand it the way the ancient Hebrews understood it. Then you don't have to ask total strangers on the web, but you can figure it out on your own.
A local university might have a class you can audit, or you may be able to find something at a community college. Good luck, and tell me how it goes.
F
Only one reason for being as arrogant as you are, feeling of knowing you have no solid interpretation, and feeling of inconsistently, just waiting for someone to point it out. Yet try to be rude and arrogant and appear to have confidence, and sound smart by suggesting classes, though it's obvious you never had a hermeneutics class in your life. Yes that's what you need so you can be consistent in whats figurative and literal, and not just go by your Pick and choose method, in other words literal when diva wants, figurative when diva wants. When you can talk like a normal person we can continue.
If you want to be insulting and stomp your feet like bratty child, then I get enough of that with my kids.
If you want to be insulting and stomp your feet like bratty child, then I get enough of that with my kids.
T
I'm sorry, I could not make heads or tails of this sentence. May I have a subject and noun, please? I mean, clearly you are trying to insult me, I get that. However, without a complete sentence that makes sense, well, you've failed in a fairly humorous way. (Pot, meet kettle.)
Actually, I've only had two, and it is something I would like to study more. Thanks for the reminder ... I may look around and see if there's a school locally that offers some advanced classes.
Hmm. That would be one way. That's not how I go, however. As I said, I go by what GOD says. Literal when God is being literal, figurative when God is being figurative.
It doesn't surprise you that your kids are particularly rebellious. Poor parenting is common among fundamentalists.
In the mean time, I recommend you look up the word "projection." You may find it quite illuminating.
Actually, I've only had two, and it is something I would like to study more. Thanks for the reminder ... I may look around and see if there's a school locally that offers some advanced classes.
Hmm. That would be one way. That's not how I go, however. As I said, I go by what GOD says. Literal when God is being literal, figurative when God is being figurative.
It doesn't surprise you that your kids are particularly rebellious. Poor parenting is common among fundamentalists.
In the mean time, I recommend you look up the word "projection." You may find it quite illuminating.
'That says a lot about you, and none of it good. I would not brag about the fact that your library of knowledge is so limited that you never read anything outside of your own limited circle.'
Wow, a woman who is supposedly a scholar and a preacher (I think) who has about 13 years on me needs to resort to insults.
Your link is to a very short blog post by someone who discusses supernovas, and spends maybe a paragraph explaining that young earth creationists might believe in a deceptive God, or that God would need to be lying for their theory to be true. When I made my previous statement about your 'God is lying' theory, I meant specifically that theory, not debates about supernovas, the speed of light, and so on. I've read many arguments about this involving the speed of light, the expansion of the universe, whether the speed of light is static, gravitational time dilation, etc.
Since you mentioned this "God must be lying if the universe is young" idea, I did find a few websites that mention the idea, but those that supported the idea weren't very convincing, nor were they from reputable sources; they were more along the lines of the blog post that you mentioned. I'll tell you what: If you can tell me the name of a book by a prominent author who discusses this idea (and this idea specifically, the deceptiveness of God in relation to the young age of the universe, and not the topic of the age of the universe itself) more than in passing, I'll read it and tell you what I think.
'That is actually exactly what I do believe.'
What is exactly what you do believe? Do you believe that God created the universe out of nothing, or do you believe that the universe simply popped out of nothing pretty much on its own?
'And the fact that you've never heard an argument that is actually ubiquitous even in cyberspace lends to the concept that you have no clue what you're talking about.'
What does being ubiquitous in cyberspace have to do with the credibility of a theory? Anyone can post just about any crazy idea on the Internet. Unfortunately, that is often true of book publishing, but at least it's less true, especially depending on the publisher. There is a big difference between 'The Origins of Christianity' from 'Stellar House Publishing' and 'Five Views of Apologetics' by Zondervan. So that is why I am asking you to tell me a reputable book from a reputable publisher that discusses the "God is lying" idea at length.
'Genesis 1 is clearly, obviously, undeniably a fable. There is no reason to understand it any other way, and for thousands upon thousands of years, everyone understood it that way.'
This is simply untrue. There were different views on this even in the ancient world, but to say that everyone understood it this way for thousands of years is not even remotely true.
Wow, a woman who is supposedly a scholar and a preacher (I think) who has about 13 years on me needs to resort to insults.
Your link is to a very short blog post by someone who discusses supernovas, and spends maybe a paragraph explaining that young earth creationists might believe in a deceptive God, or that God would need to be lying for their theory to be true. When I made my previous statement about your 'God is lying' theory, I meant specifically that theory, not debates about supernovas, the speed of light, and so on. I've read many arguments about this involving the speed of light, the expansion of the universe, whether the speed of light is static, gravitational time dilation, etc.
Since you mentioned this "God must be lying if the universe is young" idea, I did find a few websites that mention the idea, but those that supported the idea weren't very convincing, nor were they from reputable sources; they were more along the lines of the blog post that you mentioned. I'll tell you what: If you can tell me the name of a book by a prominent author who discusses this idea (and this idea specifically, the deceptiveness of God in relation to the young age of the universe, and not the topic of the age of the universe itself) more than in passing, I'll read it and tell you what I think.
'That is actually exactly what I do believe.'
What is exactly what you do believe? Do you believe that God created the universe out of nothing, or do you believe that the universe simply popped out of nothing pretty much on its own?
'And the fact that you've never heard an argument that is actually ubiquitous even in cyberspace lends to the concept that you have no clue what you're talking about.'
What does being ubiquitous in cyberspace have to do with the credibility of a theory? Anyone can post just about any crazy idea on the Internet. Unfortunately, that is often true of book publishing, but at least it's less true, especially depending on the publisher. There is a big difference between 'The Origins of Christianity' from 'Stellar House Publishing' and 'Five Views of Apologetics' by Zondervan. So that is why I am asking you to tell me a reputable book from a reputable publisher that discusses the "God is lying" idea at length.
'Genesis 1 is clearly, obviously, undeniably a fable. There is no reason to understand it any other way, and for thousands upon thousands of years, everyone understood it that way.'
This is simply untrue. There were different views on this even in the ancient world, but to say that everyone understood it this way for thousands of years is not even remotely true.
T
I'm not sure why you keep saying this. I have said at least twice that it is not out of the scope of God's ability. This makes the third time I am saying that sure, if God had WANTED to, God could absolutely have created the world in six 24-hour days. What I have been saying is that God chose not to do this. If God had done this, the creation would indicate that age, because the God in whom I believe, in whom I put my trust, does not lie.
I would ask, "Can you show me one reason why God would lie," except that I know you've already said you don't believe he does.
Of course, your insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis requires a lying god. I've explained it several times, but maybe you haven't understood yet, so I'll try it again.
The creation says it is billions of years old. You believe that it is not, because you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Unfortunately, if creation is NOT billions of years old, that means that whoever created the world planted lies in that creation making it appear older than it was. If you believe that God created the world, planting lies in it, you believe that God is a liar. There's no getting around it, if you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The odd thing is, even before humans knew that the world was billions of years old, they read Genesis figuratively. They thought the world was much younger than it is, because they had no evidence to the contrary, but they did understand that Genesis 1:1-2:4a was clearly intended to be taken figuratively, and that, while God may have only taken six days (or six minutes, or six billions years ... they didn't know or particularly care) to create the universe, the descriptions given in Genesis were clearly poetic and symbolic, not literal.
Again, I have stated several times that I believe God DID write the Bible. I will ask you again, nicely, please do not lie about what I have said. If you don't remember what I said, that is one thing, but it seems you are more forgetful than someone of your advanced intellect should be.
God wrote the Bible. God chooses many different genres in his communication with us. Jesus spoke in parables as often as (if not more than) not. I believe that Jesus was and is God. Therefore, it makes sense that God would use parables as well.
I know there are some branches of Christianity that do not believe that Jesus is/was the same as God, but I think I remember you saying you did not belong to one of those sects.
I have given you several over the past several days, several more in this post, and will continue to give you more. I understand that you need to pretend like I'm not giving you actual explanations, because otherwise you might be forced to question your faith, and that can be scary. But it doesn't have to be. Please know that millions of devout Christians have been able to keep their faith completely intact while rejecting outmoded or even harmful ideas that have been taught to them. It's all up to you. I will continue to work on you, because I think you are intelligent, and it's worth trying to get you to understand. Call me stubborn, or maybe the Spirit has moved me to work on you, I don't know. For whatever reason, I seem to be compelled to keep on keeping on, long after most would have thrown in the towel.
I would ask, "Can you show me one reason why God would lie," except that I know you've already said you don't believe he does.
Of course, your insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis requires a lying god. I've explained it several times, but maybe you haven't understood yet, so I'll try it again.
The creation says it is billions of years old. You believe that it is not, because you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Unfortunately, if creation is NOT billions of years old, that means that whoever created the world planted lies in that creation making it appear older than it was. If you believe that God created the world, planting lies in it, you believe that God is a liar. There's no getting around it, if you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The odd thing is, even before humans knew that the world was billions of years old, they read Genesis figuratively. They thought the world was much younger than it is, because they had no evidence to the contrary, but they did understand that Genesis 1:1-2:4a was clearly intended to be taken figuratively, and that, while God may have only taken six days (or six minutes, or six billions years ... they didn't know or particularly care) to create the universe, the descriptions given in Genesis were clearly poetic and symbolic, not literal.
Again, I have stated several times that I believe God DID write the Bible. I will ask you again, nicely, please do not lie about what I have said. If you don't remember what I said, that is one thing, but it seems you are more forgetful than someone of your advanced intellect should be.
God wrote the Bible. God chooses many different genres in his communication with us. Jesus spoke in parables as often as (if not more than) not. I believe that Jesus was and is God. Therefore, it makes sense that God would use parables as well.
I know there are some branches of Christianity that do not believe that Jesus is/was the same as God, but I think I remember you saying you did not belong to one of those sects.
I have given you several over the past several days, several more in this post, and will continue to give you more. I understand that you need to pretend like I'm not giving you actual explanations, because otherwise you might be forced to question your faith, and that can be scary. But it doesn't have to be. Please know that millions of devout Christians have been able to keep their faith completely intact while rejecting outmoded or even harmful ideas that have been taught to them. It's all up to you. I will continue to work on you, because I think you are intelligent, and it's worth trying to get you to understand. Call me stubborn, or maybe the Spirit has moved me to work on you, I don't know. For whatever reason, I seem to be compelled to keep on keeping on, long after most would have thrown in the towel.
T
Shoot, somehow the link didn't work. I was on a page that went into detail on the theory ... when I was reading, there was nothing about supernovas. I copied the address bar, put it in the link.... Not sure what happened. I'll see if I can get some better links for you.
BTW, did you read the new thread I started? I think that link may be more ... how can I say ... reliable? I'm a little embarrassed to say I know enough about computers to be dangerous, lol.
I feel the same way about so-called "Young Earth Science." I've seen a handful of so-called scientists provide "evidence" that the world may be only a few thousand years old, but when you actually look at what they have, you discover they don't really have "evidence," what they have is a lack of the absence of evidence, and lots of hot air, and they claim the reason they can't get published is because the science community refuses to accept their findings, but with as many publishers as there are who are controlled by churches and other conservatives, that excuse just doesn't hold water.
Fair enough. I'll look through my library. I would, in fact, always recommend "paper" books to the internet, so that works for me.
I believe that God created the universe out of nothing. The Big Bang theory pretty much supports that theory. It is possible to accept the Big Bang theory without believing in God, and it is possible to believe in God without accepting the Big Bang theory. However, the two are completely compatible.
Just like evolution.
I actually totally agree with you here, and concede this point to you. Like I said, I will check out my library (which right now is in boxes, so it may take a day or two) but I will get back to you.
BTW, did you read the new thread I started? I think that link may be more ... how can I say ... reliable? I'm a little embarrassed to say I know enough about computers to be dangerous, lol.
I feel the same way about so-called "Young Earth Science." I've seen a handful of so-called scientists provide "evidence" that the world may be only a few thousand years old, but when you actually look at what they have, you discover they don't really have "evidence," what they have is a lack of the absence of evidence, and lots of hot air, and they claim the reason they can't get published is because the science community refuses to accept their findings, but with as many publishers as there are who are controlled by churches and other conservatives, that excuse just doesn't hold water.
Fair enough. I'll look through my library. I would, in fact, always recommend "paper" books to the internet, so that works for me.
I believe that God created the universe out of nothing. The Big Bang theory pretty much supports that theory. It is possible to accept the Big Bang theory without believing in God, and it is possible to believe in God without accepting the Big Bang theory. However, the two are completely compatible.
Just like evolution.
I actually totally agree with you here, and concede this point to you. Like I said, I will check out my library (which right now is in boxes, so it may take a day or two) but I will get back to you.
F
Look, seriously, you said send you some links, you also said you were not aware that there is scientific evidence for a young earth. With all insults aside, I am saying, either you meant that as you have looked into it, and reject the evidence, or you not aware of it. If you really are not aware of it, I will send you links to good topics, IF you will really consider them, and look into it honestly. However, if you meant you reject any evidence that show for this, then obviously that would be a waste of my time.