Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[Foxfyre]

Your stupid question was answered thrice by myself and several times by others. If you can't read, that's your problem.

The only ones who have indirectly addressed it are those who assert that 'energy has always been here'. If that is your opinion also, how do you support that? And did those rocks and whatever other substances that exist result from that 'energy'? How? If so was that according to natural selection also?

For me intelligent design encompasses the whole of the universe, and not just conditions existing on one relatively insignificant planet in a relatively insignificant solar system.

 

[JBeukema]

Twice I linked you to information on M-Theory. I also mentioned the Lambda-Colt model, which some others adhere to.

I also mentioned how, according to L-C, the sum of the universe is zero and the relevant appearance and disappearance of 'virtual particles' that has been observed.

Learn to read.

 

[Foxfyre]

Twice I linked you to information on M-Theory. I also mentioned the Lambda-Colt model, which some others adhere to.

I also mentioned how, according to L-C, the sum of the universe is zero and the relevant appearance and disappearance of 'virtual particles' that has been observed.

Learn to read.

Learn to read what is asked. I am familiar with all the 'theories'. I want your explanation for the questions asked.

 

[JBeukema]

I already told you my answer.

Five times now.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community.

In other words: you're giving a different meaning and definition to an established term.

It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition.

Yes, it is your "right" to make up definitions and then apply them to previously defined terms, thereby allowing yourself to encompass the ideas of ancient philosophers into the term despite the fact that they have never supported the original meaning of the term. Poor communication and making up definitions is your "right". Just don't expect people to agree with things when you make them up.

My point is that I.D. is not science and should not be included in the science curriculum. But neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are.

And going further beyond my point to my purpose in makiing it: I object to any science curriculum that presumes to discount I.D. as a reasonable explanation and thereby presume to attack or destroy the faith of children. Science can quite competently be taught without doing that.

Once again: science doesn't give a crap about faith. It is not a science teacher's job to teach things without a lick of supporting evidence. There is no reason to dismiss ID anymore than to dismiss the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster, but there is similarly no reason to acknowledge these unsupported fairy tails in a scientific classroom either. If that lack of acknowledgment blows your faith, I recommend home schooling your children so you can offer your own form of ignorance directly.

And I reject that as I and millions of others accept I.D. AND natural selection. One is not exclusive of the other.

Actually, ID and evolution ARE mutually exclusive. Either evolution is driven by natural selection, OR all animals were specifically designed by some magical creator and placed on the Earth as they currently are. The ID movement was born as a plot to discredit and spread false rumors about evolution. This is the very foundation of "Intelligent Design". Don't go backpedaling now and claim they can be cooperative ideas. RELIGION and SCIENCE can be cooperative. One can believe in god and evolution, certainly, but ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.

My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection. Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory. I have taught the concept myself in the classroom. I have written and can write a pretty darn good paper on the concept from memory. And, in my opinion, it has no quarrel whatsoever with intelligent design.

Once again you are making broad sweeping generalizations with absolutely no supporting evidence or even a scrap of logic. IF a creator designed the universe and its atoms, and even the first life form on the planet, evolution without a creator can still exist. You can claim the creator "designed" natural selection if that makes you feel better at night, but ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.

But this idea of going back until you can't figure something out, claiming that part is God, and then claiming that therefore God did all the things you CAN figure out is poor logic.

 

[antagon]

No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community. You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be. It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition. We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.

But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.

no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.

 

[edthecynic]

You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism

It is. Unless you think your 'intelligent designer' came about after that which you credit it for designing.

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.

But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.

Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin. Did it all appear from nothing? Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?

However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end. And Spinoza, Einstein, et al, are not unreasonable in discerning a system, pattern, and purpose in nature that just doesn't mesh with it all occurring due to pure chance.

That question has been answered over and over again and IGNORED by you over and over again.

All the stuff in the universe is ENERGY in its various forms!!!!!!!!!!! ENERGY IS NOT NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something coming from nothing does not fly in the face of all scientific THEORY, it flies in the face of scientific LAW!!! Specifically the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!!!!!! The very Law, which you now pretend to accept, that you have been ignoring and flying in the face of when you keep asking where energy/matter, the stuff of the universe, comes from!!!!!!

The FLoT says energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!! If energy cannot be created that means it can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed that means it can't decrease. Since energy can't increase or decrease that means energy is a CONSTANT. Energy can only change from but the sum total of all the energy in the universe in all its forms is ALWAYS exactly the same.

You seem to have no problem with the concept of an Intelligent Designer always existing even though there is absolutely no proof, but you can't seem to accept the fact that energy always exists even though it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that you can repeat YOURSELF and CONFIRM for yourself.

 

[JBeukema]

Something coming from nothing does not fly in the face of all scientific THEORY, it flies in the face of scientific LAW!!! Specifically the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!!!!!!

With the caveat that TFLOTD aplies within the familiar universe. The hypothesized 'plane' in which M-Theory's branes operate or the pre-splitting-of-0-into-1-and-(-1) of the Lambda-Colt model would fall outside the realm of the universe in which TFLOTD had been proven to be in effect.

The FLoT says energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!!

-Within the universe it describes.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Yes. Emphasis on the qualifier "ignorant" to describe him and "people like [him]". He has tried his darndest to keep his religion out of this thread, going to great lengths not to mention it and flat out claiming he hasn't spoken about it. So once again we find YOU making the assumption that ignorant people = Christianity. Actually I take that back. To reach that conclusion, you had to ASSUME he was Christian, THEN you had to ASSUME Christians were ignorant. In fact, I was simply pointing out ignorant people believe things they can't explain are proof of a deity. This is and has been factually accurate since the first time I've said it.

So there are athiests who believe in a "Creator"?

Where on earth are you drawing that conclusion!? Where in the above text can you possible gather that inherently self contradictory garbage?

Perhaps the issue you're having is not realizing that other religions exist in the world besides Christianity? You tell me how you could have POSSIBLY drawn that conclusion from the above text.

Atheists, by definition, do not believe in a creator. As soon as an atheist believes in a creator, they are no longer an atheist! However, ignorant people in the past who didn't understand the sun and believed it was a deity were not atheists! You see how that works?

Have fun victimizing yourself on that one.

Just asking you to go back and look is all. And reminding you that if you use the word God with a capital 'G' with your nonsense I will no longer take it as an innocent little mistake.

Went back. Pointed out where you're still wrong. Don't care about capitalization. No, it has nothing to do with being "dishonest" or a "liar" or making a "mistake" or even being disrespectful. It just doesn't matter to me, and the meaning of the word is still just as relevant, proven by the fact that you still understand what I'm saying. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, and it has nothing to do with ANYTHING we're talking about.

Now, if you'd like to actually return to the discussion instead of going on about more tangential fluff, let me know. While you decide, here's a recap:

• Foxfyre constructed his own definition of "Intelligent Design", twisting it in a manner that actually falls away from its original meaning
• He then applied it to ancient philosophers as support to his theory, taking their meaning out of context, and claiming they agree with his reasoning
• He offers absolutely no supporting evidence of the actual meaning of ID or his own
• He continues to ask the vacuous pitfall of "but where did that come from", never satisfied with the answers, and claiming proof of a creator as soon as he fails to read the scientific understanding
• While he was incapable of accepting "it doesn't matter what came before that", he has no problem accepting a creator without asking "and what made that?"
• He avoids and ignores anyone who asks him legitimate questions that challenge his new definition of ID

Let me know what part of that conversation you'd like to jump into, LIGHT. Even as a fellow believer, I don't think you can really support his newly constructed definitions.

 

[edthecynic]

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.

'


To design, your designer must exist before it designs, yet along before its design is realized. This necessarily places it outside the universe you assume your 'unmoved mover' or 'uncaused causation' designed. This places it squarely in the realm of the supernatural, in the real of deity.

Not necessarily. Plato's concept was that it has all always been here. The "idea" of rock. The "idea" of dog. The "idea" of tree. A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it. And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D., I think that's pretty much how Einstein most likely perceived it too.

Again let's look at my post in its full context:

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.

But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.

Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin. Did it all appear from nothing? Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?

However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end. And Spinoza, Einstein, et al, are not unreasonable in discerning a system, pattern, and purpose in nature that just doesn't mesh with it all occurring due to pure chance.

So again I ask, where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin? Did it all appear from nothing? And what force set it all into motion to produce the universe that we now have?

I'm hoping that if I ask the question of enough people, somebody will finally have the guts to say they don't know. And because they don't know, that leaves the door open for all sorts of possibilities.

Damn you are stubborn!

All the matter in the universe is a form of energy which cannot be created or destroyed. Energy is not nothing!
Get that through your thick head!

 

[Foxfyre]

No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community. You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be. It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition. We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.

But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.

no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.

Well actually the term "Intelligent Design" was modified and its meaning shifted to get away from strictly a "Creator" designed concept and this was mostly by the same religious folks who originally identified it with a Creator. Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum. But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science.

If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?

By the way, I have very much appreciated the quality of your arguments here even though I can't agree with all of them. JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them. It is reassuring to know that there are at least one or two folks capable of carrying on a grown up discussion exploring all facets of the controversy.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I think the problem here is that he sees matter and energy as two completely distinct concepts, where in all actuality they are linked phenomena. Even if he were to accept the fact that energy has always been around, he wants to know where all the "stuff" came from, not realizing matter is a form of energy related by the speed of light squared that can only exist stably in certain forms.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum. But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science.

There is no such thing as an "anti-religious educator". There are religious educators, and there are people who don't care about unsupported claims, yours being one of them. It has nothing to do with being against religion, as most teachers are religious, so much as not teaching unfounded garbage in the classroom. There are a myriad of unsupported ideas in the world. Yours is no better than the rest.

If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?

Why try to classify them at all? Why not just quote them for what they said instead of squeezing the context into a completely different meaning?

JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them.

Still false. I negged you because you aren't mature enough to stay in a conversation when the questions being asked of you clearly tear down your entire argument, resulting in you needing to ignore such questions and the people asking them. I had been disagreeing with your stupidity for a long while. I only negged you when you decided to put your fingers in your ears and stop responding to the arguments you didn't like. Please stop crying about this already. It's just a neg.

 

[JBeukema]

I think the problem here is that he has his head up his ass.

 

[antagon]

No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community. You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be. It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition. We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.

But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.

no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.

Well actually the term "Intelligent Design" was modified and its meaning shifted to get away from strictly a "Creator" designed concept and this was mostly by the same religious folks who originally identified it with a Creator.

this is how i understand the term's etymology in the context of science, too. this modification is the central and stickiest use of the term, however, and like the impact of einstein's conservation, antagon's conservation proposed above, has a long way to go before it's useful in a conversation. worse yet, you're using ID in the same context as originally proposed.

Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum. But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science.

i think the idea of intelligent design is bad science in itself for the implications which i characterized as corrosive to scientific method earlier. apart from a primer on scientific method, scientific philosophy isn't too central to sciences until it's explored in-depth in university. at that level, approaches to exploration are tackled, like reductionism vs holistics, and the value and application of each. what could ID afford science, whatsoever?

If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?

deism or spinoza's deism, einstein's deism.

By the way, I have very much appreciated the quality of your arguments here even though I can't agree with all of them. JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them. It is reassuring to know that there are at least one or two folks capable of carrying on a grown up discussion exploring all facets of the controversy.

you're welcome.

 

[Foxfyre]

no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.

Well actually the term "Intelligent Design" was modified and its meaning shifted to get away from strictly a "Creator" designed concept and this was mostly by the same religious folks who originally identified it with a Creator.

this is how i understand the term's etymology in the context of science, too. this modification is the central and stickiest use of the term, however, and like the impact of einstein's conservation, antagon's conservation proposed above, has a long way to go before it's useful in a conversation. worse yet, you're using ID in the same context as originally proposed.

i think the idea of intelligent design is bad science in itself for the implications which i characterized as corrosive to scientific method earlier. apart from a primer on scientific method, scientific philosophy isn't too central to sciences until it's explored in-depth in university. at that level, approaches to exploration are tackled, like reductionism vs holistics, and the value and application of each. what could ID afford science, whatsoever?

If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?

deism or spinoza's deism, einstein's deism.

By the way, I have very much appreciated the quality of your arguments here even though I can't agree with all of them. JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them. It is reassuring to know that there are at least one or two folks capable of carrying on a grown up discussion exploring all facets of the controversy.

you're welcome.

No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum. I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum. Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.

Deism assumes a Creator God who puts the forces of nature into motion and then leaves it to work itself out and does not involve itself in it. Neither Spinoza nor Einstein embraced Deism or any concept of a Creator God or god.

And however 'sticky' is the definition of Intelligent Design, it really comes down to who gets to set the parameter of the definition doesn't it. You reject my definition. I reject yours as the only way to look at I.D. I believe my point of view is more broad minded and less prejudicial than yours, but I won't fault you for your definition. I will fault you for not allowing me mine.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum. I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum. Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.

Looks like you say that right here:

we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science

neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are

Either something is or is not in the classroom. You don't want ID in the classroom and yet you don't want it dismissed. How do you reconcile the contradictory nature of that argument? Besides, you can't really dismiss something you don't acknowledge in the first place.

And however 'sticky' is the definition of Intelligent Design, it really comes down to who gets to set the parameter of the definition doesn't it. You reject my definition. I reject yours as the only way to look at I.D. I believe my point of view is more broad minded and less prejudicial than yours, but I won't fault you for your definition. I will fault you for not allowing me mine.

Unfortunately for you, the parameters and definition of ID has already been set. Perhaps you need a new term to better encompass your distinct form of crazy. His definition is the standard definition of the word, which anyone can look up on wikipedia or cheap online dictionaries. Your definition is something you made up in your head recently that has no relation to the actual meaning of the term. Similarly, I don't go defining evolution as "the process made by the flying spaghetti monster to make stuff". A definition is already established for that word, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I WANT IT TO BE. Perhaps you need some help with the basics of human communication.

 

[antagon]

No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum. I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum. Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.

i based that assessment on this statement about educators, which i assumed was a science educator with an onus to promote 'good science':

we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science

if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so. any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study. it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.

this is in the realm of philosophy or religion itself. i'm not sure how i'm convoluting what you are proposing. it is still not clear what place ID might have in good science if dismissal of it were bad science.

i dont know much about spinoza or einstein in the context of their thoughts on deity. i know spinoza was an enlightenment thinker, and brushed on his proposals over a decade ago in university, but wasn't a fan per sa. i presumed they were deists.

here is wiki's definition of deism:

Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for either faith or organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe.

Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here's the quote which you produced from einstein earlier:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

reasonable suspicion and probable cause, at least.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so. any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study. it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.

Exactly. I mean, what's the multiple choice question on that one?

Which of the following is the best reaction you should have for the way the world works?
A. It sucks. Maybe there was a designer.
B. It's amazing! The designer is awesome!
C. It just is, without bearing on how I should feel about it
D. The bible is wrong
E. The world allows for much grandeur right down to the smallest molecules.

I know what you're thinking: oh crap, I've narrowed it down to two......

Seriously, what kind of learning is a student supposed to get out of such a thing? This is not science.

 

[Foxfyre]

To Antagon, you aren't much on nuance are you. (Just teasing.) My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach: God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things. It is foolish to even think that. And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.

Gotta go.....late for church, but will address the rest of your comments upon return.