"Day" in Genesis 1:5
Comments
-
@reformed said:
You actually cannot employ the scientific theory for evolution.I think you meant to write "scientific method." And yes, in fact scientists must use the scientific method as they design and implement their tests of the theory of evolution. Said method is at the heart of scientific inquiry.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You actually cannot employ the scientific theory for evolution.I think you meant to write "scientific method." And yes, in fact scientists must use the scientific method as they design and implement their tests of the theory of evolution. Said method is at the heart of scientific inquiry.
Yes I meant method. And do show how you use the scientific method for evolution. It is impossible.
You cannot test or recreate evolution.
-
My background is biochemistry. I had classes in evolutionary morphology, genetics, evolutionary anthropology. My prof’s were all non-Christian and largely anti-Christian. 100% of them were honest enough to admit evolution was only an interpretation of data and that vast amounts of data existed in conttradition to the theory.
-
@GaoLu said:
My background is biochemistry. I had classes in evolutionary morphology, genetics, evolutionary anthropology. My prof’s were all non-Christian and largely anti-Christian. 100% of them were honest enough to admit evolution was only an interpretation of data and that vast amounts of data existed in contradition to the theory.I think many people believed that the evolutionary theories are bankrupt. The shame is when Christians supposed to know better, buys into its pseudo-knowledge/principles as God ordained. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
I think many people believed that the evolutionary theories are bankrupt. The shame is when Christians supposed to know better, buys into its pseudo-knowledge/principles as God ordained. CMAs a Christian who believes deeply and without reservation in the scientific foundation of theory of evolution, CM, I tell you there is no "shame" or bankruptcy in the convictions I and many others own. Nor is the science of evolution in any regard a matter of "pseudo-knowledge." I acknowledge that it is for you and many others; but it's not for me.
In my view, the science of evolution is not seriously disputed in the professional science community. Of course there is a small segment of skeptics, but such a result is inevitable. My goodness, 3-7% of scientists raise doubts human activity's role in global climate change! Consensus on scientific issues is rarely unanimous... but it doesn't need to be.
Given your views about those who disagree with you on evolution, as least as you presented them in your post, there's little chance that following links will make a constructive contribution to your reflections on the issue, but I offer you a link to two online resources.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
(a video series from PBS)https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/
(three observations about the accuracy of evolution's explanation of reality) -
@GaoLu said:
My background is biochemistry. I had classes in evolutionary morphology, genetics, evolutionary anthropology. My prof’s were all non-Christian and largely anti-Christian. 100% of them were honest enough to admit evolution was only an interpretation of data and that vast amounts of data existed in conttradition to the theory.Very interesting. That's certainly nothing that trickles down to the general population, at least not in Germany.
I'll ask the associate pastor at my church, who is a biologist by occupation, what his professors said about it at college. My friend, who is an MD, said that in his college classes no prof doubted the evolution model.I recently listened to a talk by Frank Turek, in which he said that there was a meeting of the Royal Society in 2016 during which alternative natural theories to evolution were debated. (Of course they came up with nothing). I could find lots of references to the meeting, but only few details about what was actually discussed.
(I bet the simulation theory is becoming more popular, since it allows sort of a "creation model" without any moral implications).
@C_M_ said:
I think many people believed that the evolutionary theories are bankrupt. The shame is when Christians supposed to know better, buys into its pseudo-knowledge/principles as God ordained. CMPart of the problem is that Christians tend not to play by the rules when it comes to the origins question, and work apart from the scientific method.
This is something that can be done and must be done, especially now that the evolution model is being openly questioned more frequently. It's a good opportunity to provide input, and to reach scientists who are willing to listen.
RTB has developed a testable creation model:
https://www.logos.com/product/43282/more-than-a-theory-revealing-a-testable-model-for-creationFrom the YEC side, Leonard Brand comes close to doing so:
https://www.logos.com/product/30992/faith-reason-and-earth-history-2nd-ed
The Kindle version of his book is currently free:
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Reason-Earth-History-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B06XR6SSYW -
@Jan said:
Part of the problem is that Christians tend not to play by the rules when it comes to the origins question, and work apart from the scientific method.I think you employ interesting terminology here, Jan. For Christians, what do you believe are the "rules when it comes to the origins question"? And what do you mean by Christians' "work(ing) apart from the scientific method"?
This is something that can be done and must be done, especially now that the evolution model is being openly questioned more frequently. It's a good opportunity to provide input, and to reach scientists who are willing to listen.
Who's openly questioning the evolution model more frequently? Do you contend that the professional science community is doing so? If so, can you provide support for your contention?
-
@Jan said:
@C_M_ said:
I think many people believed that the evolutionary theories are bankrupt. The shame is when Christians supposed to know better, buys into its pseudo-knowledge/principles as God ordained. CMPart of the problem is that Christians tend not to play by the rules when it comes to the origins question, and work apart from the scientific method.
What "rules" Christians tend not play by? Are Christian required to work "from the scientific method?"
This is something that can be done and must be done, especially now that the evolution model is being openly questioned more frequently. It's a good opportunity to provide input, and to reach scientists who are willing to listen.
Jan, are you vaguely hinting at critical contextualization or compromising biblical principles? Please, explain yourself. Did I miss something at the last read of Genesis? All theories will bow at the feet of truth and not vise versa.
"Truth may be ugly, naked, plain, or bitter, but it is still the truth. I may not recognize it, but truth is truth. I may not believe it, but truth is truth. Better to choke on bitter truth than to savor sweet lies." SKP
Must we water down Divine Revelation through inspiration to accommodate the "evolution model"? CM
-
This is something that can be done and must be done, especially now that the evolution model is being openly questioned more frequently. It's a good opportunity to provide input, and to reach scientists who are willing to listen.
Who's openly questioning the evolution model more frequently? Do you contend that the professional science community is doing so? If so, can you provide support for your contention?
I already linked two articles in this thread about theories that life originated in outer space, and that we might be living in a giant computer simulation (sort of Matrix). There are plenty of scientists who are researching these hypotheses. Just switch on Google, and you'll find plenty of evidence that such theories are gaining popularity.
Here's an article from Dr. Turek's website:
https://crossexamined.org/debating-atheists-arrival-of-biological-information-part-35/
"In Nov 2016, scientists from around the world met in London to discuss how the neo-darwinian mechanism fails to account for the complexity of life."Ray Comfort said in one talk which I can't find any more, that a (non Christian) college professor once told him that evolution should not be taught at colleges.
@C_M_ said:
Part of the problem is that Christians tend not to play by the rules when it comes to the origins question, and work apart from the scientific method.
What "rules" Christians tend not play by? Are Christian required to work "from the scientific method?"
If we would like to see theistic "intelligent design" to be seen as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution in places like schools and colleges, I don't see how we could achieve that without playing by the rules.
The "simulation hypothesis" (Matrix) clearly shows that science starts to open up to non-theistic "intelligent design" theories. It will not take long until there's a testable model for the simulation hypothesis available. If the Christian community continues to have a general output of pseudo-science when it comes to "intelligent design", have a guess which one of the two models will make it into the next generation of text books!
This is something that can be done and must be done, especially now that the evolution model is being openly questioned more frequently. It's a good opportunity to provide input, and to reach scientists who are willing to listen.
Jan, are you vaguely hinting at critical contextualization or compromising biblical principles? Please, explain yourself. Did I miss something at the last read of Genesis? All theories will bow at the feet of truth and not vise versa.
I think I've been clear about "truth" throughout this thread. Truth needs to correspond with reality, especially with observation of creation. If Christianity is not able to provide evidence that it corresponds with reality, it would have no more or less credibility than any other religion. How would you witness to the Hindu who believes by blind faith that the world rests on a giant turtle? Or how do you convince the atheist that believing by blind faith that the universe is only 6000 years old is in any way superior to believing by blind faith that the world rests on the back of a turtle?
-
The creation story demands each generation, whether burdened with scientific facts or with mythological fantasies, to acknowledge that this world is a creation and a gift of God entrusted to man, whose life is meaningful because it is rooted in God.
One has to ask oneself, a few fundamental questions, before getting into bed with evolutionary theories:
1. Is it really necessary to be able to explain the creation week in the light of modern scientific theories?
2. Has modern science the know-how and the instruments to test and explain how long it takes to "create" a solar system such as ours with its multiforms of life?We seem to forget that science can observe and measure ONLY the ongoing processes of CONSERVATION and DISINTEGRATION. In fact, modern science by assuming that these ongoing processes have always functioned in the past essentially as in the present (uniformitarianism) excludes the possibility of a divine fiat (spoken-into-existence) process.
Thus, ultimately the problem is not how to reconcile the creation-week with modern theories of origin, but how to conciliate the Biblical teaching of a divine creation with the prevailing "scientific" theory of spontaneous generation. Is it possible to harmonize the two? Obviously not, since the two views rest on entirely different premises.
- -- The latter accepts only natural causes
- -- While the former acknowledges God as the Supernatural Cause:
"By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear" (Heb. 11:3). CM
-
@Jan
To clarify, my prof’s probably all atheists in the bio dept., admitted data contraindicating evolution, although I am fairly sure most of them believed it. As Dr Darda once said, “the theory has a lot of problems and some contradictions, but apart from belieiving in a god, it is the best we have until we learn more.”
My quote is probably not exact but represents what I recall being said various times.
I did record many exact quotes but do not have them at hand.
My son is finishing up Med school and also has journal-published neuro-physiological research. I have asked what he is hearing - no response yet. I will tell you what he says one way or the other. -
Ok. My son says that prof’s vary in med school. Some are outspoken atheists. Some are Christians. Mileage varies on evolution, but evolution isn’t relevant to most med school topics. Evolution was mostly left behind in undergrad school.
Some treat evolution as obvious and some as absurd. For the most part there is a higher intellectual engagement at med school and evolutionary conjecture is left behind.
So he says.
Not much has changed that way since my university days. Has anyone here had a different post grad experience? -
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
I think many people believed that the evolutionary theories are bankrupt. The shame is when Christians supposed to know better, buys into its pseudo-knowledge/principles as God ordained. CMAs a Christian who believes deeply and without reservation in the scientific foundation of theory of evolution, CM, I tell you there is no "shame" or bankruptcy in the convictions I and many others own. Nor is the science of evolution in any regard a matter of "pseudo-knowledge." I acknowledge that it is for you and many others; but it's not for me.
In my view, the science of evolution is not seriously disputed in the professional science community. Of course there is a small segment of skeptics, but such a result is inevitable. My goodness, 3-7% of scientists raise doubts human activity's role in global climate change! Consensus on scientific issues is rarely unanimous... but it doesn't need to be.
Given your views about those who disagree with you on evolution, as least as you presented them in your post, there's little chance that following links will make a constructive contribution to your reflections on the issue, but I offer you a link to two online resources.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
(a video series from PBS)https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/
(three observations about the accuracy of evolution's explanation of reality)Evolution is nonsense and easily debunked.
-
@reformed said:
Evolution is nonsense and easily debunked.Reformed, I remain FAR more unconvinced than you of the usefulness of the word "nonsense" (or "stupid" or "crazy") in constructive discussions of issues.
The objective scientific truth is that the theory of evolution has not been "debunked," and is widely and deeply accepted as the best available explanation of the origins and development of species.
-
Au contraire. There are too many inconsistencies, which evolution scientists either ignore, or they keep doctoring false facts until they match their world view.
Example: let's examine the 99% genetic similarity of humans and chimpanzees, which evolutionists claim as proof for common descent.
However, the 99% similarity id not accurate. There's only a 99% similarity of those gene sequences that both chimps and humans have. But chimps have additional gene sequences that are not at all similar to human gene sequences, and humans have additional gene sequences as well. Overall there's only about 87% similarity. And there's no clue from where the additional sequences could have evolved from.
What at first look seems to be an overwhelming evidence for common descent in fact turns out to be evidence for a common design.
SOURCE: Rana, F., & Ross, H. (2005). Who was Adam?: a creation model approach to the origin of man. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Evolution is nonsense and easily debunked.Reformed, I remain FAR more unconvinced than you of the usefulness of the word "nonsense" (or "stupid" or "crazy") in constructive discussions of issues.
The objective scientific truth is that the theory of evolution has not been "debunked," and is widely and deeply accepted as the best available explanation of the origins and development of species.
Actually it has definitely been debunked, not to mention doesn't even make logical sense, and I have given links (that you do not accept) that show it has been debunked.
If you want to believe fallible man over God, that is your business.
-
@reformed said:
Actually it has definitely been debunked, not to mention doesn't even make logical sense, and I have given links (that you do not accept) that show it has been debunked.
I'm not aware of any links you have provided to demonstrate that evolution has been "debunked." Please provide me a link to your CD post(s) in which you provided those links.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Actually it has definitely been debunked, not to mention doesn't even make logical sense, and I have given links (that you do not accept) that show it has been debunked.
I'm not aware of any links you have provided to demonstrate that evolution has been "debunked." Please provide me a link to your CD post(s) in which you provided those links.
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/top-ten-myths-about-evolution/
http://www.icr.org/article/massive-genetic-study-purporting-human/
And it is easy to find many more.
-
@reformed said:
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/top-ten-myths-about-evolution/http://www.icr.org/article/massive-genetic-study-purporting-human/
And it is easy to find many more.
I didn't ask for links to articles, reformed. Because in a previous post you claimed to have "already given" such links, I asked for links to your CD posts in which you originally provided those links. Hence, I renew my request.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/top-ten-myths-about-evolution/http://www.icr.org/article/massive-genetic-study-purporting-human/
And it is easy to find many more.
I didn't ask for links to articles, reformed. Because in a previous post you claimed to have "already given" such links, I asked for links to your CD posts in which you originally provided those links. Hence, I renew my request.
I'm not going to go through the entire forum to find them. I've already posted them, if you are that interested in seeing them feel free to search them out yourself.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I didn't ask for links to articles, reformed. Because in a previous post you claimed to have "already given" such links, I asked for links to your CD posts in which you originally provided those links. Hence, I renew my request.I'm not going to go through the entire forum to find them. I've already posted them, if you are that interested in seeing them feel free to search them out yourself.
Well, that's the thing, reformed. Before I posted my request to you, I searched your posts for any links about evolution you might have provided in the past, and found none. So when I asked you to provide them, I knew you wouldn't be able to. The only question was whether you'd acknowledge that you couldn't, or tell me to search for the non-existent posts myself.
[My search might have missed the posts in which you offered the links! If so, I will welcome your provision of them.]
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I didn't ask for links to articles, reformed. Because in a previous post you claimed to have "already given" such links, I asked for links to your CD posts in which you originally provided those links. Hence, I renew my request.I'm not going to go through the entire forum to find them. I've already posted them, if you are that interested in seeing them feel free to search them out yourself.
Well, that's the thing, reformed. Before I posted my request to you, I searched your posts for any links about evolution you might have provided in the past, and found none. So when I asked you to provide them, I knew you wouldn't be able to. The only question was whether you'd acknowledge that you couldn't, or tell me to search for the non-existent posts myself.
[My search might have missed the posts in which you offered the links! If so, I will welcome your provision of them.]
They are there. I remember specifically one from ICR.
-
@Bill_Coley In fact it is in this very thread! https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/5442#Comment_5442 so I guess you didn't search very hard. I await your apology for basically calling me a liar.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley In fact it is in this very thread! https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/5442#Comment_5442 so I guess you didn't search very hard. I await your apology for basically calling me a liar.1) I didn't call you a "liar." I specifically left open the possibility that I had "missed the posts in which you offered the links," and offered to "welcome your provision" of any links I had missed. That's not the rhetoric of "liar" calling.
2) The link you identify is a post in which you cited an icr.org titled "Starlight and the Age of the Universe," whose subject is, not surprisingly, the age of the universe. But you didn't claim to have provided links to articles that debunked modern science's accepted explanation of how starlight reports the age of the universe. You claimed to have provided links to articles that "debunked" the theory of evolution. Specifically, you wrote...
"I have given links (that you do not accept) that show it [the theory of evolution] has been debunked."
The icr.org article that you cite includes exactly one sentence in its nearly 2,300 words that mentions evolution. While you will likely contend that it "debunks" evolution without referencing evolution, the icr.org article writ large is clearly not about evolution, but rather about the age of the universe.
So yet again - and again without calling you a "liar" - I ask you for links to your posts in which you provided "links [note: plural; more than one link] that show [the theory of evolution - not the age of the universe] has been debunked."
-
Brethren,
Theistic evolution is a major influence on modern theology. Robert Russell and Kirk Wetger-McNelly make clear that “Christian theologians have developed a diversity of positive responses to Darwin’s theory of evolution over the past 140 years, which by and large assume that what science describes in terms of evolutionary biology is what theology sees as God’s acting in the world. Simply put, evolution is God’s way of creating life, a view frequently called ‘theistic evolution." (my emphasis).In a letter to Christine Barth (Letter 181), Barth points out that “ the creation story is a witness to the beginning . . . of all reality distinct from God . . . in the form of a saga or poem. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the same reality . . . in the form of a scientific explanation. One’s attitude to the creation story and the theory of evolution can take the form of an either/or only if one shuts oneself off completely either from faith in God’s revelation or from the mind (or opportunity) for scientific understanding.”
One would find upon a close reading of Torrance, an example of one who "supports an evolutionary view of the cosmos, an expanding universe that resulted from some form of original Big Bang, along with a concomitant commitment to some form of theistic evolution”, so says Habets.
I don't know how widely Mr. Reformed read, but I offer these sources to help him make his point that evolution has been "debunked." Just adding to the conversation. CM
SOURCES:
-- Robert John Russell and Kirk Wegter- McNelly, “Science,” in The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology, ed. Gareth Jones (Malden, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2004), 523.
-- Hinrich Stoevesandt and Jurgen Fangmeier, eds., Karl Barth: Letters, 1961-1968, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 184.
-- Myk Habets, Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance (Farnham, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 44.
* -- Thomas F. Torrance, Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 24.
* -- Thomas F. Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 122. -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley In fact it is in this very thread! https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/5442#Comment_5442 so I guess you didn't search very hard. I await your apology for basically calling me a liar.1) I didn't call you a "liar." I specifically left open the possibility that I had "missed the posts in which you offered the links," and offered to "welcome your provision" of any links I had missed. That's not the rhetoric of "liar" calling.
2) The link you identify is a post in which you cited an icr.org titled "Starlight and the Age of the Universe," whose subject is, not surprisingly, the age of the universe. But you didn't claim to have provided links to articles that debunked modern science's accepted explanation of how starlight reports the age of the universe. You claimed to have provided links to articles that "debunked" the theory of evolution. Specifically, you wrote...
"I have given links (that you do not accept) that show it [the theory of evolution] has been debunked."
The icr.org article that you cite includes exactly one sentence in its nearly 2,300 words that mentions evolution. While you will likely contend that it "debunks" evolution without referencing evolution, the icr.org article writ large is clearly not about evolution, but rather about the age of the universe.
So yet again - and again without calling you a "liar" - I ask you for links to your posts in which you provided "links [note: plural; more than one link] that show [the theory of evolution - not the age of the universe] has been debunked."
Now you are just being ridiculous. That is all part of evolution Bill. And I am sure I have probably posted more, but like I said, I don't have time to waste because you want more proof and don't want to find the links yourself.
But anybody with half a brain can see that evolution (macro) makes no sense whatsoever. There is zero evidence for it.
-
@reformed said:
Now you are just being ridiculous. That is all part of evolution Bill. And I am sure I have probably posted more, but like I said, I don't have time to waste because you want more proof and don't want to find the links yourself.No, reformed, you haven't posted more; in fact, you haven't posted any. Had you posted any - links to information that "debunked" the theory of evolution, that is, not links to articles about starlight's ability to report the age of the universe - you would have offered them. But you didn't offer them, because you can't offer them. They don't exist.
But anybody with half a brain can see that evolution (macro) makes no sense whatsoever. There is zero evidence for it.
I encourage you to review the posts of a CD participant whose forum ID is @dct112685. He's not currently active in CD, but I think you'll find common ground with David's theology and word choice. He, too, was a fan of dismissive phrases such as "half a brain" and "oh brother," as well as lifeless critiques such as "stupid" and "ridiculous." I think you'll find lots to like in his posts. [Now that I think about it, I'm reasonably certain David actually did post links to articles about the theory of evolution, if not in this iteration of CD, then in the previous one.]
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Now you are just being ridiculous. That is all part of evolution Bill. And I am sure I have probably posted more, but like I said, I don't have time to waste because you want more proof and don't want to find the links yourself.No, reformed, you haven't posted more; in fact, you haven't posted any. Had you posted any - links to information that "debunked" the theory of evolution, that is, not links to articles about starlight's ability to report the age of the universe - you would have offered them. But you didn't offer them, because you can't offer them. They don't exist.
I still maintain those are links that debunk evolution. You disagree, but that is your opinion, not fact.
But anybody with half a brain can see that evolution (macro) makes no sense whatsoever. There is zero evidence for it.
I encourage you to review the posts of a CD participant whose forum ID is @dct112685. He's not currently active in CD, but I think you'll find common ground with David's theology and word choice. He, too, was a fan of dismissive phrases such as "half a brain" and "oh brother," as well as lifeless critiques such as "stupid" and "ridiculous." I think you'll find lots to like in his posts. [Now that I think about it, I'm reasonably certain David actually did post links to articles about the theory of evolution, if not in this iteration of CD, then in the previous one.]
I'm tired of people telling me about David. I've seen his posts and, in my opinion, he seemed a bit more abrasive than I would like to think I do. I do agree with most of his positions, delivery probably could have been different, but he had a lot of truth in what he said.
-
@reformed said:
I still maintain those are links that debunk evolution. You disagree, but that is your opinion, not fact.It is indeed a fact, not an opinion, that in the posts you created before the one in which you offered new links on the evolution debate, you provided a single link, not links (plural).
And as for that one link, remember the content of the article and context in which you linked to it.
- The article's title is "Starlight and the Age of the Universe" - no indication of a concern for evolution there.
- The article contains one, single sentence that mentions evolution - no indication of concern for evolution there.
- And you provided the link to respond to this question I had posed:
"For what purpose, with what intention, would God create a world that was 0.0000004% as old as it appears to be?
No indication of concern for evolution there.
So I asked about the age of the universe, and you linked to an article about the age of the universe. In my view, that makes my contention that you had provided no links debunking evolution more than an opinion; it makes it a fact.
I'm tired of people telling me about David. I've seen his posts and, in my opinion, he seemed a bit more abrasive than I would like to think I do. I do agree with most of his positions, delivery probably could have been different, but he had a lot of truth in what he said.
The similarities between your theology and manner of expressing it and David's are striking and difficult to ignore, reformed. For example, when I saw your use of the dismissive interjection "oh brother" I remembered David's frequent use of it. That led me to do a search to determine how many other CD posters had used it. The answer was none. I found 15 previous deployments of the phrase, ALL of them from David Taylor.
And then there's your CD username: "reformed." Given similarities such as the one I just noticed, you gotta agree that it's not totally unreasonable for people to speculate that David left the forums in great upset, then decided to return. But because his departure post had made his decision sound final, he decided to adopt a new posting identity, one whose posts would reflect a change in what you called the "a bit...abrasive" tone of his posts. He then chose the username "reformed" to name the change.
I get it that you're tired of people telling you about David, reformed. I just want you to know there's some cause of that telling. Have patience. Such foci don't have long shelf lives.
