Calling all Young Earth Creationists

[Helen]

Bob, you have drinken the Kool-Aid. I guess the scientific community either wants to NOT discover how things work, or they want to hide it so they can push a false idea for God-knows-what reason. That you believe something like that is what is truly sad.

still catching up here. No Kool-Aid, Magnetic, and don't you think it is time you stopped insulting people?

Evolution is actually not part of science at all, not part of the discovery of 'how things work.' It is a philosophical position which cherry picks the data it wants to support itself. It also happens that those who have this position are in charge of the money, grants, presses, etc. I think you would be surprised how many research scientists either could care less about evolution, simply because it has no bearing on what they do, or doubt it greatly, but do not say anything because they have seen those who do doubt lose tenure, lose publishing rights, lost positions entirely and certainly lose the 'respect' of the rest of the scientific community.

That you refuse to look at the data yourself without evolutionary glasses on is truly sad.

 

[BobRyan]

. I saw something that bothered me greatly -- up until one person, every single man I worked with on BOTH sides was going theory first and trying to cram data into it, ignoring other data, or marginalizing it.

Which is "HOW" we got the fraudulent "horse series" in the first place. Notice that while ATheist Darwinists DO admit to what our true devotee to atheist darwinism - UTEOTW slavishly denies in an act of pure blind faith (that the horse series presented "never happened in nature") -- they DO NOT claim that the METHODS used are to be condemned for as you have stated above THEY use those very same methods today -- still.

All they lament is that "the method" was employed in a manner that was farrrr too easy to debunk and expose! Their blind-faith in junk-science leads them to doctrinal statements in favor of atheist darwinism amounts to nothing more then "story telling" as Patterson points out. Patterson chafes at the sight of such blind slavish devotion for their darwinist doctrines -- and states that even as an atheist he must urge for more objectivity and more skepticism and LESS fundamentalist UTEOTWism among the believers.

How sad that ATHEISTS get the point (in some cases) but some Christians do not!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rew, one thing to understand. With all due respect to Helen, Barry's "work" is not that of a scientist. From what I can tell, he is a self-taught lay person

Rew - with all due respect MP did not state one single FACT in opposition to anything Helen or Barry have ever said. He gave no "actual facts" showing "a FINDING" of Barry's or citing "an EXPERIMENT" that Barry did that was found to be in error.

Rew when reading the shallow arguments of believers in atheist darwinism it is always best to "list the salient points". In the case above MP is complaining about Helen and Barry AS IF he has IDENTIFIED an experiment that either of them had done and found that the methods used did not have sufficient scientific value under honest objective review or were found/proven to be fraudulent like the debunked horse series was found to be fraudulent. Instead "he cites nothing" by way of the WORK being done to base his accusation!!

How "instructive" for the reader.

Quite often it is the case that non-PHD research is done in the form of compiling and publishing the findings OF highly qualified scientists. Simply publishing what other scientists have found to be true is not "a problem". All science books do it.

The "problem" only comes in when someone performs an experiment or provide a data analysis using methods that are NOT scientifically sound.

For example - You sir could argue that "2+2=4" without having to have an advanced degree in higher math.

Obviously.

When debating the blind-faith tactics of devotees to atheist darwinism it is often the case that merely stating the obvious is sufficient to expose their tactics.

But in this case - I find nobody saying that "The earth is 6,000 years old BECAUSE Barry said so". The argument that MP is using has no merrit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob also never stops with long discredited arguments. River deltas are much older than he lets on for various reasons including compaction and erosion of the deposited material, not to mention that dating a river delta only dates the river delta, not the earth. .

The dancing and squirming and just pure rabbit-trailing that UTEOTW elects to do when data disconfirms his blind faith in atheist darwinism is always an entertaining show.

#1. UTEOTW provides no data at all in his argument above.

#2. The glaring fact that ALL major river deltas should ALL produce "sedimentation rates" sufficient for something LESS than 10,000 years IS NOT a prediction of atheist darwinist "steady state" theories.

Obviously.

#3. Sedimentation rates are always GREATER during the formation of rivers which means that using TODAY's rate is exceedingly generous IN FAVOR of atheist darwinism. The fact that UTEOTW is still choking on the "Results" is "instructive".

The blind faith that UTEOTW is placing in the failed stories and discredited doctrines of atheist darwinism worthy of a hindu priest but should not be embraced by someone having an ounce of respect for actual science and rational thought!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Rew_10]

It is true that SOME scientists try to push agendas, but it's the exception and not the rule. And I attend a university where I spend most of my time surrounded and being taught by them, and I have family and friends who have doctorates in scientific fields.

On the other hand, creationists ALWAYS have an agenda to push, and its just called Genesis. It always falls to the "God of the Gaps" argument. As soon as a scientists even murmurs, "I'm not sure", creationists fill it with God, by default.

Do you actually believe that scientists around the world are all plotting a conspiracy together, and that they sent codes around telling all of them to support evolution and a 4 billion year old earth, etc?

If the Earth is somehow proven to be 6000 years old, some scientists still will shun the idea, but most are going to just be in awe as they are with any other profound discovery. But it's nothing compared to Creationists who refuse to even acknowledge the evidence provided to them by actual scientists. I'm have no qualms about whether the Earth is 4 billion years old or 6000, but I'm not going to ignore evidence and brainwash myself. Every argument for a 6000 year old Earth has been debunked, but of course creationists just say that "atheists Darwinists" just want to push their own agenda.

Here's an peice from the what Judge John E. Jones wrote about the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution hearing in Pennsylvania in 2005.

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explaination for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine-books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'

Behe was later cross-examined by Eric Rothschild and was forced to admit that he hadn't read most the the fifty-eight papers. And Behe also dissmissed such research as 'unfruitful'! This is why I detest the Creationist mindset.

After this, Rothschild summed it up with this.

Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system...It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Thier efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe adn the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.

 

[Rew_10]

The blind faith that UTEOTW is placing in the failed stories and discredited doctrines of atheist darwinism worthy of a hindu priest but should not be embraced by someone having an ounce of respect for actual science and rational thought!

It's amusing to hear a Creationist bash someone about rational thought.

 

[DHK]

It's amusing to hear a Creationist bash someone about rational thought.

Perhaps. But boil it down to its simplest terms.
The evolutionist would have us to believe that from the an explosion of gases (which they cannot account the origins of) suddenly appeared a perfectly ordered universe, galaxies, solar systems, the earth, etc. Everything in perfect running order came from one random explosion that came from a mixture of gases, and we don't know where they came from. It takes a lot of faith, blind faith, to believe in a fairy tale that is similar to that. I suppose it is called the Big Bang.

It takes much less faith to believe in God, who said that he made everything in six days and rested on the seventh.
Either way, which ever way you choose to believe, the creation account given in Genesis one, or the Big Bang account of evolution are both in the realm of the metaphysical. They take faith. No one was there to observe creation. Both are in the realm of religion. The evolutionist has no claim or right to delve into this area of the metaphysical and call it science.

 

[BobRyan]

It is true that SOME scientists try to push agendas, but it's the exception and not the rule. And I attend a university where I spend most of my time surrounded and being taught by them, and I have family and friends who have doctorates in scientific fields.

"Family and friends" eh? me too.

But I don't think this topic is about "family and friends" it is about the ability to express independent thought, reason and common sense when evaluating the salient points of an argument.

In the example just given - you asked for documentation on the fraudulent horse series presentation made in the 50's and I gave it.

And I tried to give only atheist darwinist science sources not Christian science sources because UTEOTW has made us all aware of the fact that to a darwinist there is no higher source than an atheist darwinist -- not even God! So I try to accomodate the narrow set of blinders the darwinists use.

But in your response you are selecting an "all for atheist darwinism" response rather than the open minded, objective, factual, sceptical approach that our atheist darwinist friend - Patterson insists upon.

The "inconvenient detail" for true believers in atheist darwinism are -- in this case..

#1. That the fraud was presented NOT as the usual "creatively imagined thought experiment" which is the normal fare for darwinists - but rather as 'a proven EXAMPLE" in fact "the PREMIER example" of darwinism FOUND in the fossil record COMPLETE with actual fossils all listed in the series. Nothing supposedly "imagined here" - all of it FOUND!!

#2. In most cases the VERY SAME sources shown in my post as decrying the continued use of the failed series - were at one time some of the VERY sources upholding it as THE prime example of Darwinism "in the flesh".

#3. (As already pointed out) NOT ONE of these sources is saying the "obvious" which is "HEY Wait a minute! IF this NEVER HAPPENED then it could NEVER HAVE BEEN FOUND! IF it was CLAIMED to have been FOUND then there must have been a FLAW in the PROCESS used to FIND this sequence. That means we can expose the flaw - correct it and IMPROVE our PROCESS".. Yet this is NEVER the case. And the reason is because the METHOD of "arranging to fit the story" is the method they STILL USE!!

So notice - when I place a small challenge before you - to exhibit independant thought - reason and objectivity you simply "attack Bible believers" as IF that somehow solves the problem for the example of the fraudulent horse series.

On the other hand, creationists ALWAYS have an agenda

As much as it may "feel better" to attack Bible believing Christians whenever a flaw in the atheist darwinist argument is published -- it does nothing for the atheist darwinist argument - but attempt to derail the point. Everyone reading the thread can easily see that.

Try a more direct repsonse to the problem. Recall that you asked for sources AS IF having them would matter to you.

My response to you was the challenge for you to "Allow inconvenient facts" to get in the way of a good story told by atheist darwinists. You can still step up to that challenge.

Do you actually believe that scientists around the world are all plotting a conspiracy together, and that they sent codes around telling all of them to support evolution and a 4 billion year old earth, etc?

It's called "research funding" and Tenure. Ever heard of it??

But it's nothing compared to Creationists who refuse to even acknowledge the evidence provided to them by actual scientists.

#1. I AM providing the evidence against the fraudulent horse series found by actual scientists.

#2. Your statement above is the standard-fare montra of atheists claiming that "Bible believing Christian" by definition is "not scientist" but "Atheist" by definitoin "IS".

That is very unfortunate. Try a more ojbective open-minded compelling approach.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here's an peice from the what Judge John E. Jones wrote about the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution hearing in Pennsylvania in 2005.

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explaination for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine-books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'

Your argument above is that "The number of stories being told" and the fact that "many atheist darwinists agree to them" should suffice the objective open-minded reasoning individual RATHER than the CONTENT of the stories".

Your argument needs more substance and less devotion.

Behe was later cross-examined by Eric Rothschild and was forced to admit that he hadn't read most the the fifty-eight papers. And Behe also dissmissed such research as 'unfruitful'! This is why I detest the Creationist mindset.

#1. Behe is an evolutionist not a creationist
#2. You failed to grasp the basics of the trial.

The trial was about the fact that the Board of Education dared to INFORM STUDENTS that IN THE LIBRARY THERE EXISTS A BOOK (and they named the book) that used the model of "Intelligent Design". At the trial it was EVOLUTIONISTS that were arguing FOR "Intelligent Design" NOT Creationism! (the truth shall set you free REW_10 open your eyes on this one.)

The trial was over EXTREME CENSORSHIP rights of atheist darwinists that had been CHALLENGED.

The CLASS that the 1 paragraph statement was introducing was a class on ATHEIST DARWINISM. In other words the Board of Education was going to dogmatically teach the doctrines of atheist darwinism and was obediently promoting the junk-science religion we know today as darwinism. That was not the point. All they wanted to do was to have ENOUGH integrity to ADMIT to the students that OTHER scientific models EXISTED for origins and that THERE WAS A BOOK written by a well known highly credentialed scientist that addressed one of those models IN THE LIBRARY!

But the flaw in that 1 paragraph admission was that book - written and published by a SCIENTIST in FAVOR OF intelligent design-- Dr Kenyon. (something you claim does not exist) was teaching something that an ATHEIST would have to choke on.

Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966 he became Assistant Professor at San Francisco State University until 1969.
In 1969, Kenyon and coauthor Gary Steinman published Biochemical Predestination, a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution.

This is why I call Darwinism ATHEIST DARWINISM. Because it is MORE Than just the idea "Hey I think evolutionism is to be believed" rather it is the doctrine that "DISINCTIVELY ATHEIST Evolutionism is ALL that should be ALLOWED".

How sad that the propaganda machine at your university has done such a good job at shutting down reason and independant thought.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Rew_10]

Bob, Intelligent Design IS Creationism. The Creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" prior to 1987 contained the word creationism all throughout it. In 1987, Creationim was ruled unconstituional to be taught in schools, which it is. After this, new prints of "Of Pandas and People" were published and Creationism had been removed and Intelligent Design put in its place.

And I have no problem with evolution being challenged as I have expressed before! But don't challenge it with fabricated pseudo-science which the vast majority of the scientific community rolls on the floor laughing at. Oh, I forgot, the vast majority of the scientific community is deluded and wants to abolish God. So sorry.

And yes I do have family and friends in science fields, from engineering to biochemistry to neuroscience. And they all realize that evolution is one of the best supported theories science has.

How sad that the propaganda machine at your university has done such a good job at shutting down reason and independant thought.

And yet, it seems that every thought you have on our origins is plauged with the propaganda machine called Creationism. Would you prefer that I go to some psedo-"University" like Liberty? Where they have dinosaur fossils that they claim are 3000 years old? Where they watch the Flinstones as if it were a documentary?

 

[dan e.]

Hey Rew....just curious, but what are your intentions with this thread? You seem to have quite an agenda. Is this issue big enough to you that you can't cooperate with believers that are young earth? I've got to tell you, this is no hill I'd die on. I have my opinions, but there are more important things to spend my time on than to date a rock. Just curious, you seem pretty hardcore towards those who are young earth. Yes, I realize others are the same towards you. Why don't you acknowledge what you DO believe about the origins of the earth (such as if God created), and maybe we'll find some common ground!

 

[Chemnitz]

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explaination for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine-books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'

Behe was later cross-examined by Eric Rothschild and was forced to admit that he hadn't read most the the fifty-eight papers. And Behe also dissmissed such research as 'unfruitful'! This is why I detest the Creationist mindset.

After this, Rothschild summed it up with this.

Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system...It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Thier efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe adn the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.

It would be nice to have more context to Dr. Behe's statements, but what I'd rather see is what were these 58 papers. Having read immunology texts most of the so called chapters on the evolution of the immune system is conjecture formulated from a preconceived notion, they do not exactly prove evolution. Usually, they assume evolution is true and work backwards. So, I can see why Dr. Behe would be dismissive of them despite thinking he made an error in doing so thus killing his credibility.

BTW, I would like to address the "God in the Gaps", for creationist, such as myself, it is not 'God in the Gaps" it is God everywhere. I can still remember my initial awe in Biochemistry as I realized that God is an incredible engineer.

Also, everybody has an agenda and it is the ones who tell you they don't that you have to watch out for because they are the dishonest ones who try to sneak in their agenda under the table.

 

[dan e.]

good point.....it seems to me that the finger has definitely been pointed in all directions saying, "look at your preconceived notions". even those from evolutionist side (calm down rew). God created. If you are a Christian and are trying to argue against that.....I'm not sure what to tell you. I'd probably say stop reading your science books and work at the great commission a little more.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Intelligent Design IS Creationism.

#1. Creationists do not agree.
#2. Evoltionists like Behe do not agree
#3. Only atheist darwinists (and those they are trying to brainwash) tell "that story".

Creationists claim that Intelligent Design does not go FAR enough in endorsing the Creation ACCOUNT since ID does not argue for the 7 day creation week God identifies - and ID does not deny evolution from species to species. Creationists will POINT to ID arguments as a form of objective scientific observable fact - that disproves a disctinctively atheist model for evolutionism. But they do not point to it as proving a 7 day creation week. ID is nothing more than the Romans 1 statement about what "is CLEARLY SEEN -- even by PAGANS -- in the things that have been made regarding the attributes of God"

This is an easy point for Christians to grasp - but the atheist darwinists prefer to gloss over the details so they can express their devotion to atheist concepts. It is VERY clear that ATHEISM can not survive an ID argument but as the EVOLUTIONISTS promoting ID have shown us - EVOLUTIONISM can.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[El_Guero]

Go Bob!

Wayne

#1. Creationists do not agree.
#2. Evoltionists like Behe do not agree
#3. Only atheist darwinists (and those they are trying to brainwash) tell "that story".

Creationists claim that Intelligent Design does not go FAR enough in endorsing the Creation ACCOUNT since ID does not argue for the 7 day creation week God identifies - and ID does not deny evolution from species to species. Creationists will POINT to ID arguments as a form of objective scientific observable fact - that disproves a disctinctively atheist model for evolutionism. But they do not point to it as proving a 7 day creation week. ID is nothing more than the Romans 1 statement about what "is CLEARLY SEEN -- even by PAGANS -- in the things that have been made regarding the attributes of God"

This is an easy point for Christians to grasp - but the atheist darwinists prefer to gloss over the details so they can express their devotion to atheist concepts. It is VERY clear that ATHEISM can not survive an ID argument but as the EVOLUTIONISTS promoting ID have shown us - EVOLUTIONISM can.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Intelligent Design IS Creationism. The Creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" prior to 1987 contained the word creationism all throughout it. In 1987, Creationim was ruled unconstituional to be taught in schools,

Please show less devotion and more intellectual curiosity here.

#1. Instead of defending gross censorship - show a bit if skepticism.
#2. Instead of abandoning your argument "no real scientist today accepts what God said to be true" - research the history for Kenyon - find out what was sooo compelling from HIS POV that it was worth risking everything to embrace truth over fiction.
Quote:

Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966 he became Assistant Professor at San Francisco State University until 1969.
In 1969, Kenyon and coauthor Gary Steinman published Biochemical Predestination, a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution.

#3. There has never been a court case decision by the supreme court saying that schools CAN not teach creationism. The fact that you would quickly leap on to such a gross censorship bandwagon shows the lengths to which you are expressing devotion to atheist darwinism over fact.

Since it is unlikely you would take a bible believing Christian's view over an atheist darwinist -- I will (as usual) present this view from one of your atheist icons.

"The Supreme Court said you can't force the teaching of creation science, but it didn't say that if individual teachers happen to want to teach it they can't."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution, Extinction and the Movies," in Time, May 14, 1990, p. 19.

Rew_10

And I have no problem with evolution being challenged as I have expressed before! But don't challenge it with fabricated pseudo-science

The issue is whether you are defending the junk-science methods of atheist darwinism --

I have SHOWN that your facts are not correct.

I have SHOWN that even atheist darwinists admit to their own junk science methods (at very rare moments of open confession) such as Patterson with the issue of "story telling" among atheist darwinists.

I have also SHOWN historic examples where Atheist darwinists admit that their junk-science METHODS were SUCCESSFULLY promoted in schools EVEN when atheist darwinists themselves admit to the fact "that it never happened in nature" in the case of the fraudulent horse-series example. Recall that the horse series is the one THEY claimed was "THE BEST EXAMPLE of evolutionism available to date".

I have SHOWN that atheist darwinist "true believers" like Isaac Asimove ADMIT to the fact of "a massive DECREASE in Entropy" being needed in the junk-science story-telling of "molecule to human brain" evolution. An Evolutionary sequence comprised entirely by "imagining an entertaining thought experiment" as is the case with all the junk-science story telling in atheist darwinism. But as any Physics student knows - a "story" that needs "a massive DECREASE in entropy" to hold true - is a junk-science story.

which the vast majority of the scientific community rolls on the floor laughing

Less devotion - more fact - mor science.

Stephen J Gould's argument for punctuated equilibrium WAS NOT "accepted by the vast majority" of atheist darwinist when he proposed it. By contrast THEY thought STASIS was the correct model. If the montra is to be "whatever makes the majority of atheist darwinist laugh must be wrong" -- then we would never have gotten off that dime!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rew_10
And yes I do have family and friends in science fields, from engineering to biochemistry to neuroscience. And they all realize that evolution is one of the best supported theories science has.

And yes I do have family and friends in science fields, from engineering to biochemistry to neuroscience. And they all realize that evolution is one of the great examples of junk-science and brainwashing that is demonstratable today.

But I have to ask - how many people here could NOT say that!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Rew, one thing to understand. With all due respect to Helen, Barry's "work" is not that of a scientist. From what I can tell, he is a self-taught lay person with a preconceived idea, and he wants to come up with any inane way to "prove" that idea. He has to find unsupportable things that counter observations, and that is why no real scientists look at his writings with any credibility. If there was evidence to support them, they would be taken seriously. They are not. His audiences are largely fundamentalist churches. The scientific community is not dumb and Barry so smart that he has discovered things they don't know or understand.

Again, I mean no disrespect. I just call it like I see it.

Well, there is the claim of a new paper being finished up. I know I have offered what I see as some well reasoned problems that have been hand waved away. But I am just a dumb engineer.

Let's see about the new paper. For better or worse, the way we judge the merits of a scientific idea is to put it before the experts. We see if the ideas presented really are logical, if they really describe our universe, it the results can be duplicated, if they can be tested and so on.

Let's see what happens. If the science and the math and the logic is good, it should be unassailable; it will end up in one of hte leading astronomy or physics journals.

If the experts in physics and/or astronomy don't find it covincing, provided they get a chance to see it, then it will not make it into such a journal.

If instead it ends up as an un-peer reviewed article or in one of the fringe journals or in something like the TJ or the CRSQ, then we know that it was not well reviewed by the experts or that it was not even put before them.

But perhpas it will be respected and published by those who have the background and the expertice to judge. Then he might actually be on to something. But we should be able to soon watch what happens to the paper in the marketplace of ideas. For that is the best judge we have, whatever flaws there may be.

 

[BobRyan]

We see if the ideas presented really are logical, if they really describe our universe, it the results can be duplicated, if they can be tested and so on.

Every once in a blue-moon you see someone who would normally argue in favor of "imagination" over inconvenient fact, and "thought Experiment" over "lab result" -- actually express some kind of acceptance of good science methods...

And that is a glimmer of light coming from an otherwise spinning, misdirecting and obfuscating source. It is a welcome sight for sure.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Peer review is how we judge science. If the ideas are good enough, they will get accepted. If not, ...