Christians: Does age of earth matter?

"It must be LARGER than the difference WITHIN a kind such as the various breeds of dog or the various kinds of birds...Having a TRUE perching bird with modern feathers capable of flight is NOT a way to show a lizard "becoming a bird"."

Bob, I have shown you in exquisite detail how Archaeopteryx has a large number of features that are well outside of the variation seen within any modern birds. Furthermore, and this is the important part, these same traits are well within the variation seen in the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved.

"I think a transitional must show stepwise MACRO evolution itself and not merely the MACRO differences that exist between species...SHOW the stepwise evolutionary changes in macro evolution."

But you ignore it when I do. How detailed do you want me to get here? I have given you a slice of the transitional series of animals that connect back to undisputed dinosaurs. I have given you hints at how the bodies of these animals changed during the process. I guess I can go into great detail if you wish, but there is a world of knowledge out there that you could look at on your own. I have given you several transitionals between archy and theropods. It is not that hard to Google them. You will find the bodies changing between that of the dinosaurs and that of the birds. You will find the developement of feathers. (Some of the theropods had simple feathers. As you move towards creatures like Caudipteryx you get larger, more complex feathers that are symmetrical indicating they were not flight feathers. Finally you get the asymmetrical flight feathers. That should work for step by step macro changes.) But I predict you will ignore this.

Likewise we can go through the evolution of whales. We can start with Pakicetus moving on to Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. As we do, we can trace the changing body as a land dwelling creature becomes a sea going creature. We can see it in the bones. We can even measure ratios of oxygen isotopes to tell which ones spent how much of their time in the ocean and on land. Once we get sea going creatures, we can go on and look at the changes in Dorudon and Basilosaurus. We can even get into some of the others like Indocetus and Kutchicetus if you like. But again, I predict you will ignore the "macro"evolution no mattter how well it is presented to you.

Likewise, we can step through the evolution of the lobe finned fish from primitive fish. Show how some of the lobe finned fish developed a shoulder and pelvis and limbs and digits. We can show how these turned into actual legs. I can give you transitionals that spent more and more of their time on the land until you get full fledged amphibians. Have you even looked at anything on Acanthostega and Ichthyostega? I have given a brief description of them as transitional but there is a world of informaition out there for you.

I have given you a long series of progressive modifications that show the evolution of mammals from reptiles. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? Have you read it? Can you object to it? This is quite detailed in the "macro" changes and can get quite a bit more detailed if you wish.

If you want to get into finely detailed transitions between species then we can talk about Eocoelia or Foraminiferida or Orbulina or Pelycodus. But you would have to deny all this also. You might want to Google them just in case, see what you think.

You have even been shown the series of apes leading to modern humans. Of course, this you deny also.

The macro changes have been spelled out for you time and time again. You refuse to accept any of it. There is nothing wrong with the data that has been shown to you. You cannot find any real fault in it. Yet you continue to claim no transitionals. How do you deny the weight of the evidence before you? Do I need to become encyclopedic? Does it take research paper length posts?

"Show a trilobite with a simple eye-spot, then a single eye, then the emergence of multiple eye-spots around a single fully developed eye that merge over millions of years into compound eyes."

And I don't know why you continue to throw out this bizarre request. This is the same as asking to show you the early mammal with nothing more than an eye spot. By the time triolobites had evolved, they had eyes. Now I have shown you that the early trilobites had simple eyes and you can see the evolution of their complex eyes as you follow them with time. But you ignore this. Cannot let data interfere here. Besides, surely you are aware of how rarely soft tissue fossilizes. How often do you think something as delicate as an eye will fossilize with detail? Ever? (With trilobites we get lucky that their lens contains some calcite which let's us see some fossilized trilobite eyes, or at least the lens.) What would a fossil eyespot look like? You know that would not fossilize.

"This is "obvious" - but it is the data that the religion of evolutionism "needs to avoid"."

I do not think I am the one here ignoring data. Just an opinion.

 

Hairless dogs are like lizard in that respect as well. But this does not show a lizard becoming a dog or a dog becoming a lizard.

The Conference on Evolution was right to class this as "a TRUE BIRD". The best you have done is to show it as a unique kind of bird in some ways - but a true bird, fully capable of flight, no scales, perching, "true bird".

Obviously - You can not imagine a "true bird" to be the intermediate BETWEEN a bird and anything else.

Your insistence on showing the UNIQUE features of this bird - are like showing the unique features of a hairless dog, when in fact you are looking for an intermedidate BETWEEN bird and something else.

Bob said --
"I think a transitional must show stepwise MACRO evolution itself and not merely the MACRO differences that exist between species...SHOW the stepwise evolutionary changes in macro evolution."

I gave perfect examples here. But in addition to those findings - you should be able to show the zillions of failing types being created today - as well as a few succeeding examples.

But "of course" the actual subject of this thread is how evolution "matters" to the Christian religion - faith in the Word of God as "Accurate and correct" vs humanism as Hawkings and Darwin view(ed) it.

At any point in time there should be millions of animals in the middle of a "million year transition" of either a failing type or a succeding typ, in all stages (initial, mid-way and late).

But instead - we have ... "zip". Ohhh but that is "the data again".

Indeed - you have been doing a lot of guessing and relying even more so on the guessing of others.

Why not just stick with the data? Guessing that a "true bird is in fact a transition BETWEEN true birds and lizards" - is a perfect example.

No - the problem is that you don't show a achaeopterx "evolving feathers" it is entirely different body types, entirely different species like calling a Ostrich an "intermediary" between Archaeopteryx and lizard based on its feathers. It is not a transition of A species as IT develops features you need. RATHER it is looking at DIFFERENT animals and IMAGINING that their differences (like ostrich vs eagle feather) is in fact "A TRANSITION" from Ostrich to eagle when we know that nothing of the kind is "true".

Sadly - that whale tale has been debunked.

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm

This is sad for Christian evolutionists who deny the Bible account given by the creator - but as you can imagine - it is wonderful "affirmative proof" for those who choose the Bible as "trustworthy".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I knew you would deny it all. You have to. You have no other choice with the corner you have painted yourself into. Any objective reader, if we have any left at this point, should be thoroughly convinced of archy as a transitional. Comparing the detailed morphlogic similarities of archy and the theropods to slective brreding of a hairless dog, you're grasping. Just keep repeating the "true bird" mantra. You just cannot show any modern birds with any of the long list of reptilian traits I gave you. You cannot even explain why a true bird does not have a beak!

No attempt at any of the other fossil transitions either. Deny, deny, deny.

You also have to love your page that supposedly debunks whales. He does a lot of hand waving, but not a lot of refuting. (Or maybe you can explain, in your own words but drawing upon your link, just how he refutes evolution. My favorite part is the quoting of the scientists and then insisting that it shows just the opposite. For example, he quotes Thewissen as saying "But the new fossils superbly document the link between modern whales and their land-based forebears." And then in the next paragraph says "These fossils actually revealed a lack of connection between land mammals and aquatic mammals." Powerful stuff. Most of his argument boils down to incredulity that scientists can actually learn what they can learn from the fossils.

 

This is another case where you just have to wonder at the incredulity of evolutionists and you have affirm with a loud "AMEN!" the conclusions of Darwin and Hawkings that this is NOTHING like Christianity - in fact it is opposed to the Gospel telling of man's perfect, divine and direct creation and the fall of man.

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i5f.htm

Dear faithful devotee of evolutionism as a belief - read it and weep. This is "your own" fully embracing evolutionism and YET admitting that the sequence you "guess" above - proves nothing.

These are NOT Creationists doing it. They are not Believers in God's Word holding the Creator's Word to be trustworthy and reliable EVEN in Genesis - rather they are diehard evolutionists who "have no other god".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bottom line:

a) Scripture properly interpreted is inerrant (axiom)

b) Evolution has occurred and the earth is billions of years old (convincing evidence)

c) THEREFORE proper interpretation of scripture allows for evolution and billions of year old history of earth.

 

Bottom line for all.

A. The Bible is the Word of God - not man. It is trustworthy in every regard and the Gospel "requires it" as it quotes from the very "details" of the Law and of Genesis that are so denied by Evolutionism.

Even prominent well respected evolutionists like Hawkings and Darwin himself - confess this. It is not just Bible-believing Christians that claim it.

B. Evolutionism is neither fact nor proven "scientific principle". It is at best a story, a theory, a questionable model. It is merely "assumed" by those who choose not to believe in the accuracy of God's Word.

Evolutionisms views - change like the tide from decade to decade. (Atheist evolutionists even continue to debate the usefulness of the fossil record in modern times, though they have no other god but evolutionism )

C. Therefore - Christians that toss out the Word of God in favor of the changing-stories of humanism have adopted a "shifting sand" basis for their faith rather than a "solid rock".

D. The "excuse" often used is that in the past there HAVE been "traditions of the RCC" that were "challenged by science" and "science won" convincingly with "repeatable, verifiable, hard science". Both atheist and Christians (Christians who accept and trust the "account" God Himself gives in Gen 1-2:4) can rely upon "hard science" where it is "not guesswork" as in the case of the orbits of planets and shape of planets etc.

But when it comes to the guesswork and "mere assumptions" found in evolutionisms doctrines (where even evolutionists themselves object to the stories) - no "Christian faith" should be sacrificed in exchanged for well-debated-stories found in evolutionism.

Note: It is instructive that in the exchanges so far - the ONLY side being "objective enough" to quote its opponents authorities to make ITS case - is the Christian bible-believing Creator-trusting group that finds "Accuracy" in the Creator's Gen 1-2:4 "account" of what HE did in making life on this earth.

I believe these facts are beyond dispute no matter which side of the debate you take.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The difference between BobRyan and UTEOTW is simple; BobRyand isn't convinced by the evidence for evolution and UTEOTW is so convinced.

Because both BobRyan and UTEOTW are convinced by the evidence for the earth's rotation, they both will understand the Bible verses that talk about the sun rising and setting and halting its motion in a non literal way, in spite of the complete lack of Biblical reasons for doing this.

People who don't believe the earth rotates will cite the Bible as proof they are right as firmly as BobRyan asserts there is no evolution. History shows many folks did that but there are less of them these days. Many of them would refuse to look through telescopes and consider objectively scientific evidence - a pattern we can observe repeated today!

Just because we accept scientific findings and agree with evolution does not mean we wish to disregard scripture. Indeed, it is the very desire to HONOR scripture and KEEP ITS PLACE in our hearts as God's revelation to us all that gets us in trouble with the BobRyans of the world - because we can't accept their particular way of parsing what is to be literally accepted and what is not, given our knowledge that evolution has occurred and the earth is billions of years old.

 

Did Jesus Christ, the Creator and our Savior take Genesis literally while on earth?

The very God in human flesh who was there In the beginning, should have a clue, and to suggest He was speaking figuratively in both Matthew 19:4 & Mark 10:6 is calling God a liar and denying inspiration of scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ is MY FINAL AUTHORITY, not some atheistic evolutionist in a lab coat sitting in some rat hole. If Jesus Christ can repeat with authority the He (God) made them in the beginning male and female, then there should be NO problem rejecting evolution. Our Lord just debunked it.

If we can’t trust Jesus and the creation account he referred to in Matt. 19:4 and Mark 10:6, how then can we trust Him when He says that He’s the ONLY way to the Father?

 

The problem with your use of that quote from Jesus is that it is perfectly consistent with any manner of creation that God used. No evolutionist, not even the atheistic ones, would deny that from the beginning of our species they were male and female!

You are merely inventing problems where none exist for the sake of perpetuating your particular interpretation.

 

That is pretty good!

Bob is convinced by the data for YEGF and UTEOTW is not. Bob is convinced by the clear teaching of the Creator in His OWN account of HIS creative act in making mankind and in HIS explanation of the fall of man - and UEOTW is not.

As Einstein said - motion is relative to the observer. Our orbit about the sun depends on your point of reference - is it the center of the Galaxy, the Sun or the earth. Depending on the position of the observer it will appear in different ways.

Your effort to discredit the Word of God due to the location of the "observer" is silly.

Indeed a complete lack of data for macro evolution and massive problems with the "stories" told by evolutionists.

The histeria created by Christian believers in evolutionism about "the planet rotating" is supposed to "scare us into abandoning the Creator's account of Exodus 20:8-11 and Genesis 1-2:4". Frankly I am not convinced the histeria has all that much substance to it.

Dead wrong and the responses of the evolutionists on this thread prove it in triplicate.

Time after time they show they have NO concern at all for the Word of God - exgetically speaking - but rather they seek "compromise" between the "stories they tell" and the clear statements they find in God's Word. They desire to place their many-storied fables about evolution ABOVE the integrity and accuracy of the Word of God.

NEVER do they start with a cogent, objective, compeling, exegetically sound review of the Word of God as your speculation above would suggest.

Again - the "data" does not support the claims you make.

Notice that time after time it is the CHRISTIANS that believe in the Genesis 1-2:4 account that try to bring the focus BACK to the Word of God and time after time it is the evolutionists that avoid that topic and cling solely to "the stories" they have been telling themselves about evolutionism. Stories that EVEN evolutionists doubt. Stories that MANY evolutionists see as PLAINLY opposed to the Word of God.

Nothing could be more obvious as one reads through this thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BUT, Jesus asks, have ye not READ… Jesus is referring to the creation account of Genesis. Unfortunately for YOU, the creation account of Genesis says nothing of evolution as a means of creating. God makes it quite clear that He CREATED Man from the dust of the ground.

So the problem isn’t with my inventing or interpreting; it’s in black and white. The problem is that you misuse scripture by inventing problems where none exist for the sake of perpetuating your particular interpretation to try and justify your worldliness.

Care to answer my question? If we can’t trust Jesus and the creation account he referred to in Matt. 19:4 and Mark 10:6, how then can we trust Him when He says that He’s the ONLY way to the Father?

 

???? I don't understand why Jesus uttering the words "have you not read" requires that He had a particular interpretation of what is written there? You will note that He does not refer to the manner of creation, simply the fact of creation.

 

As for the bogus claim that the Bible expresses the creative acts of God using the language and "Stories" of evolutionists - lets see it for ourselves.

Is it your claim that Darwin, Hawkings and others "describe" evolution with these terms?

Or can your belief in evolutionism's stories still allow you to "see" that the terms used above are those used by YEGF Christians who accept the Creator's own "Account" in Genesis 1-2:4??

In Christ,

Bob

 

You speak with the advantage of hindsight and you choose to deliberately dismiss all the literal statements of scripture to the effect that the Sun moves to account for day and night, which is cause by a ROTATION of the earth, not the orbital motion around the sun;

And all of us are aware of the historical record of our forefathers, how they obstructed the advance of science in their day, precisely because they insisted on a literal interpretation of scripture, which you no longer insist upon for this particular scientific finding.

Only because, in this case, you accept the findings of science.

Hysteria? What hysteria? Oh - its another one of those psychological thingies - uh projection, in this case. Who around here has threatened anything that might cast fear into the other partie's heart - or who could?

Dead wrong and the responses of the evolutionists on this thread prove it in triplicate.
</font>[/QUOTE]Dead right, and I stand by my statement. Indeed, I will go further and state that denying the obvious truths of science by christians has done harm in the past to christianity and continues to do harm today to christianity. It happened historically with the rotation of the earth and it is happening today with evolution and the age of the earth.

It is particularly ironic that the modern day creationist accepts the findings of science partially where his forebearers did not.

 

You make your claim on the basis of saying you have careful and accurate exegesis on your side and you make misstatements like this?

Where did ANYBODY say, bogusly or otherwise, that the Bible expresses the creative acts of God using the language and "Stories" of evolutionists?

You inability to properly phrase what you are trying to say casts doubts on your ability to properly reason. Please be more careful.

 

Bob

It is my opinion that God chose to tell of the Creation the way He did for His own purposes. He did it in a way that the people of that day could understand, He did it in a way that draws a clear distinction between the One True God and the pagan gods of the other people in the region at the time, and He did it in a way that gives us all we need to know about the nature of God and the nature of Man. Who am I to question why God does things the way He does? In my opinion, there is no difference in how the rest of the Bible plays out whether you take the Creation literally or figuratively. I understand that you strongly disagree with that. But, given my opinion that God chose to reveal the Creation in figuarative language, when later people refer to that same figurative language, that does not necessarily mean that suddenly it becomes literal. Why did God never choose to indicate at some point that the Creation was only figuarative description, I don't know. But I can look and see that He also never choose to correct them on their flat earth believes, either. There are several references in the Old and New Testaments that only make sense in the light of a belief in a flat earth. This does not bother me in the least. I don't believe that God was intending a book of science and so I do not consider these to be errors. He used what they could understand and needed to know to teach them the important things. How would the Gospel have been improved if one day Jesus pulled the disciples aside and explained to them the Big Bang, evolution and a round earth? It would have not improved the message one iota and would have merely confused them with information that could not possibly handle.

In my opinion, the evidence for these things is so strong that to insist as you do that the Bible is completely incompatible with modern science is to go over and argue the side of the atheists. You may think you are doing the right thing, but you strengthen their argument as you proceed. If we find a way to reconcile the two, we take the weapon out of their hand. How can they argue that the two are incompatible when we can show that they are not? But, by insisting the way you do, you reinforce the side of the atheists as they try to convince others that they should either not join Christianity over this or that they should abandon Christianity over this. I believe that YEC costs us souls and that is why I am so opposed to it.

Saint Augustine said

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

The sentiment was captured by Orson Scott Card in the following manner

"But my heart goes out to those well-meaning mamas and papas who send their children to the "God's World" [creation science] class. Now the stupid children are safe enough; they will just laugh at evolution and be happy fools for the rest of their days. But the parents of the smart children live in dread of the day that they know will come, when their child comes home from school and says: 'Today I learned what evolution really is and YOU LIED TO ME! If you lied to me about that, then what else did you lie to me about? Did you lie about the Resurrection? About Sin and Redemption? About loving my neighbor? Was it all just lies? How could I ever believe you again?"

You have no answer to an old earth other than to deny the evidence. What happens as people find the truth?

One more pair of quotes, this time from Glenn Morton.

"After receiving a B. S. in Physics I spent one year in graduate school studying the philosophy of science. I entered the oil industry as a seismic processer where I began to learn geology on the job. Before this education in geology was complete, I published 27 articles and notes in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, presented a paper at the first International Conference on Creationism, and ghost wrote the evolution section in Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity. During this period I switched sub-disciplines within geophysics and began to interpret seismic data. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. Eventually my doubts about the reliability grew so large that I was driven to the edge of becoming an atheist."

and

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

'From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,'

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, 'Wait a minute. There has to be one!' But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."

That is the fruit of insisting on a young earth as the only possible interpretation. You side with the atheists and drive people from Christianity.

The quotes were taken from here.

 

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i5f.htm </font>[/QUOTE]I honestly do not see how this link has anything to do with humans evolving from apes. The author first quotes from a debate between paleontologists about how much significance to place on the order of the fossils in the geologic record when making phylogenetic trees. This is a very real issue and I can see both sides. Since a given species does not disappear just because something else evolves from it, I do not think the order should be absolute though it certainly has its importance. But that is a layman's opinion. I have no idea how this is supposed to argue against evolution.

Then he goes on to state his opinions on unrelated topics. He mentions the missing cat ancestor (not missing, it's Proailurus lemanensis) and the missing bear ancestor (it's not missing, it's Ursavus and Ursus) and missing dog ancestor (not missing, it's Cynodesmus) and the missing carnivore ancestor (again, not missing, it's Cimolestes). I guess I have no need to continue down his list of missing ancestors, they have all been found so far showing his assertions to be completely wrong. Do you wish me to continue? Of course you will deny that any of these are transitionals. He contiues on, spreading falsehhoods about the Cambrian explosion and making unfounded assertions about how scientists are abandoning the fossil when nothing could be further from the truth. He even asks the unbelievable rhetorical question "Is a bat a bird that learned how to give milk?" If this is the logic of your source, you better get another source. This one has been shown wrong on all accounts.

 

I've been staying clear of this thread, but I'm surprised at how many times folks are referencing Dr Hovind (aka, Dr Dino), despite the fact that he is to the YEC field what Benny Hinn is to faith healing. His degree isn't even genuine. It's from a mail order diploma mill.

If YEC supporters want to voice their position, please, by all means do, as I find this thread very interesting and worthwhile. But do not under any circumstances cite Dr Dino, as it simply punches holes in your position.

 

Johnv:
I do not know this Dr. Dino. However, I know of many scientist who believe in the literal six days of creation.
The problem I have with the evolutionist is he cannnot, by his own scientific method ,prove his
position. Therefore, the rational mind rejects evolution.
I have asked those espousing evolution the following:
1. Who observed the beginning?
2. Who recorded the data?
3. Who tested the data?
4. What tests were used to establish validity?
5. How is it possible to test a one time event and establish validity?
These questions cannot be successfully answered. Therefore, they are ignored, or one is led on some wild historical trail that cannot be proven except in the mind of the one weaving the yarn.

The scientific method requires the observation and recording of relevant data, the testing of the data, and the repeatability of these tests to establish validity, and then making rational conclusion based on the process.

It is clear to me this is an impossible task for science as it pertains ot time and origin. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, they need both to prove their position.

 

Once upon a time a woman went to the judge and said "that man is the father of my children."

The man said "No I am not".

So the judge reasoned to himself; I wasn't there at the time of conception; maybe the woman is telling the truth, maybe not, how can I tell?

So he ordered a DNA test. The DNA test proved the man was, indeed, the father.

So the judge ruled against the man and for the woman in the case.

Your logic - that only by direct observation can we find out facts - is thereby proved false.

It is therefore encombant to actually look at the real evidence for what science is telling us without making untrue statements about what it is possible to deduce from evidence.

Are you prepared to evaluate the evidence and give it a real chance to stand on its merits or have you made up your mind in advance against all possible evidence?