The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

St_Crispin

wolfsbane wrote:

Pardon an non-scientist for asking, Is this science: 'One cannot lift oneself off the ground by pulling on one's bootstraps'? Seems to be asserting a fact of physics. When ID says various biological meachanisms cannot have evolved due to their irreducible complexity, sounds like science to me. But you say it's just philosophy. A handy device for removing opposition from the table.

Philosophy takes over where science leaves off. I'm paraphrasing a famous philosopher when I say that. SWcience is what we know, philosophy is what we don't know.
ID isn't science. It's philosophy. It is a perfectly valid philosophical argument, but it's not science. Science cannot proove if god exists or not. And it shouldn't attempt to. It would be like an economist trying to describe a geographical phenonomen.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

That much is clear and which makes me wonder why you hold strong opinions on something that you admit you know little about.

I hold strong opinions FOR YEC because that is asserted by Scripture. I hold strong opinions against evolution because of the Bible teaches contrary; ubt also because I've seen how contrary views are suppressed by many evolutionists. Some on this board indeed, who would bar a hearing not only to creationist scientists but also to evolutionists who would debate the issue with creationists. I don't like intellectual censorship. I value my civil and religious liberties and those of others I disagree with.

Gathering togather the topics of your postings so far, we find that you believe that any evidence of evolution has been planted by a god, but you won't tell us why this might have been done.

Totally untrue. The same data can be interpreted and theories of the origin of species can be postulated by both camps. Arguments can be made. But most evolutionists refuse to accept that their peers who hold to a non-evolutionist interpretation deserve to be heard. They are indeed very anxious for the general public not to hear them.

But perhaps you solely refer to my statement about the apparent age of star-light? In that case you load the question by used of 'planted'. How else would al the magnificence of the universe be evident to man 6000 years ago? The God who created a fully functional man did the same with the universe. You might not believe the story, but you should see it is internally consistent - not some add-on to explain away evidence for evolution.

You tell us that evolutionists are dogmatic, while slagging off others for not reading your holy book in the same way you do.

Exactly so. Religion is a thing of absolute truths. Science is a thing of tentative truths, open to corrections and refinements, as Son Goku pointed out.

Then we hear -- without evidence -- that scientists are involved in "scheming and dishonesty".

Er, did you read the Washington Post article, or follow-up the other examples listed in the AnswersInGenesis site? Perhaps you agree with Son Goku that Sternberg got what he deserved?

Next, you tell us that scientists, who make up around 1.5% of the population, are actually a Nazi-like elite, majority.

I'm sorry I I was unclear about this: the Nazi-like elite are the majority of those controlling academia, and likely America, not a majority of the population.

And this evil majority are actively involved in supressing debate and frightening into submission your own less-than-brave academic supporters (whom you call 'sheep') despite, presumably, many of them having tenure (designed specifically so that they can disagree, without fear of losing their jobs).

Sigh.. Sternberg? The others? As to sheep, I refer to all Christian so, for Christ does - John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Then, gathering momentum, we hear that scientists aren't Nazis, but actually Stalinist "thought-police".

You make a difference between the red and brown? Same totalitarian outlook, same tactics.

Finally, we hear that the world is actually being run by "liberal fascists", some of whom you tell us, are some guys working in a museum in Washington.

Just the West at the moment. Hard to say if they will do a deal with the Communists and Islamists or whether some of these thre will get the chop. But I don't think truly liberal democracy has a future, not with the Smithonian mentality being accepted by so many in the biggest democracy we have.

Wolfsbane -- do you worry that some people, reading what you've posted, might think that you are both paranoid and completely insane?

Not really. I'm sure they don't worry I think them gullible and already blinkered.

wolfsbane

Whiskey Priest said:

Possibility 1: When God created the world, He did so in the sure knowledge that a certain number of sinners were going to be condemned to Hell, there to be tormented for Eternity.

You've got it first time!

Is this a God worthy of worship? Is it the act of a responsible Creator to create beings with the potential for sin, and to create Hell at the same time for their Eternal torment, knowing how many would sin?

Yes, if He is the infinitely wise and holy God and we are wretched beings whose wisedom was limited even before Man fell and is much worse since. Of course our sinful hearts would think we know better than Him. But when one's heart has been renewed by God, we see it from his perspective and gladly admit that He does everything well.

The Bible is either literally true, or not -

Exactly so.

however, it is possible that the New Testament supercedes the Old,

It does.

and that Christ's dispensation frees us from Hell - but, if that is the case, why not sin?

It only frees those who repent of their sin and follow Christ. Hence to continue in sin is not to be a Christian, and so to be heading for Hell.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

No, that is not science. That is an English sentence about something that you believe to be true.

Well, we certainly speak a different language. I thought the bootstrap thing was a scientific fact, and so my statement of it would be scientificaly true. Is it really only my belief that one cannot lift one's body by pulling on one's bootstraps? Is the moon a spherical object or is that only my belief?

If a bunch of things, as you say "cannot have evolved due to their irreducible complexity" then it's up to the ID people to provide some evidence to back this up.

Ah, I see what you are getting at. So 'energy cannot be created or destroyed' is not science, as it is up to those saying so to provide evidence? See, my understanding of science was not so narrow - it allowed for such statements.

wolfsbane

St_Crispinsaid:

ID isn't science. It's philosophy. It is a perfectly valid philosophical argument, but it's not science. Science cannot proove if god exists or not. And it shouldn't attempt to.

As I understand it, ID says all present suggestions as to how life has evolved to where it is are invalidated by the mathematical virtual impossibility of many of the biological units that are irreducibly complex. That is a scientific proposition in any reasonable view. It is therefore suggesting some other mechanism must have brought these irreducibly complex things into existence (originally). The mathematical objection to evolution is worthy of scientific debate. ID as such is not seeking to prove the existence of a god/s.

I hold that a supernatural being cannot be discovered by science - He must reveal Himself. So I'm not looking to prove to atheists they are wrong by scientific argument. I'm happy for creationist scientists to prove creation is in line with the observed facts - just as I'm happy that evolutionists can present their case.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm happy for creationist scientists to prove creation is in line with the observed facts - just as I'm happy that evolutionists can present their case.

So you believe that creation science is only of use to someone who has, by way of faith, decided that the universe was created?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

As I understand it, ID says all present suggestions as to how life has evolved to where it is are invalidated by the mathematical virtual impossibility of many of the biological units that are irreducibly complex.

The mathematical objection to evolution is worthy of scientific debate.

There is no mathematical basis on which to object to evolution. The standard objections involve standard Bernoulli probability, which cannot be applied to molecules, they need distributive probability.
Of course whenever I bring this up with a Creationist, I'm told I'm being elitist by using "fancy" terms. Ignoring the fact that if you want to apply mathematics to something you have to use the applicable maths, no matter how pseudo-intellectual you think it is.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Pardon an non-scientist for asking, Is this science: 'One cannot lift oneself off the ground by pulling on one's bootstraps'? Seems to be asserting a fact of physics. When ID says various biological meachanisms cannot have evolved due to their irreducible complexity, sounds like science to me. But you say it's just philosophy. A handy device for removing opposition from the table.

Science does not say one cannot lift oneself off the ground by pulling one's bootstraps. It says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which has been tested. From this theory, we know that it is impossible to lift ourselves off the ground, because the act of applying an upward force to our 'bootstraps' will result in an equal downward force. You have a carefully tested postulate that has become known as Newton's third law. Where is the euivalent rigour for Intelligent design? Where is the theory of intelligent design?

If you can't answer this, then all your censorship whining and philosophical musings on irreducible complexity is pointless.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

St_Crispinsaid:


As I understand it, ID says all present suggestions as to how life has evolved to where it is are invalidated by the mathematical virtual impossibility of many of the biological units that are irreducibly complex. That is a scientific proposition in any reasonable view. It is therefore suggesting some other mechanism must have brought these irreducibly complex things into existence (originally). The mathematical objection to evolution is worthy of scientific debate. ID as such is not seeking to prove the existence of a god/s.

I hold that a supernatural being cannot be discovered by science - He must reveal Himself. So I'm not looking to prove to atheists they are wrong by scientific argument. I'm happy for creationist scientists to prove creation is in line with the observed facts - just as I'm happy that evolutionists can present their case.

#

You are being incredibly misleading. Mathematical objections to evolution are fine so long as people accept the fact that such objections have been refuted time and time again. What we're talking about is a theory of intelligent design. I.e. Designed by an *intelligent* being. How can this be tested using the scientific method?

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

So you believe that creation science is only of use to someone who has, by way of faith, decided that the universe was created?

That, and to remove the stumbling-block to faith that a discredited bible produces.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

There is no mathematical basis on which to object to evolution. The standard objections involve standard Bernoulli probability, which cannot be applied to molecules, they need distributive probability.
Of course whenever I bring this up with a Creationist, I'm told I'm being elitist by using "fancy" terms. Ignoring the fact that if you want to apply mathematics to something you have to use the applicable maths, no matter how pseudo-intellectual you think it is.

I don't object to your use of technical terms. Has JC done so? Now you assert the sort of mathematics used the Information Theory used by ID folk is not applicable. That's beyond me to comment on. I leave that to the scientists who know the maths and are agruing the opposite. But it sounds to me like two camps in a scientific argument. You however want to prevent any debate on the scientific level, by ruling that these men are not arguing science.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Science does not say one cannot lift oneself off the ground by pulling one's bootstraps. It says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which has been tested. From this theory, we know that it is impossible to lift ourselves off the ground, because the act of applying an upward force to our 'bootstraps' will result in an equal downward force. You have a carefully tested postulate that has become known as Newton's third law.

So 'man has ascended from lower forms of life' is not a scientific statement by your definition. One would have to describe the mechanisms involved before it could be accepted as science. As I said before, that seems a very narrow definition to me.

Where is the euivalent rigour for Intelligent design? Where is the theory of intelligent design?

I imagine it is in the Information Theory mathematics as applied to irreducible complexity. Are you saying these mathematicians and biologists are just making assertions without offering their reasoning? What do you think of, for example: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm?

If you can't answer this, then all your censorship whining and philosophical musings on irreducible complexity is pointless.

Now you answer me - what do you say about Sternberg?

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

What we're talking about is a theory of intelligent design. I.e. Designed by an *intelligent* being. How can this be tested using the scientific method?

By demonstrating non-intelligent design could not have done it. Since it is there, it must be by intelligent design, whatever that involves. Does the process of elimination not apply to science? Of course I think ID cannot absolutely prove itself - there might be some utterly hidden mechanism unintelligent in nature that explains it all. But that sounds a bit religiously atheistic,

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I don't object to your use of technical terms. Has JC done so?

Yes.

wolfsbane wrote:

Now you assert the sort of mathematics used the Information Theory used by ID folk is not applicable. That's beyond me to comment on. I leave that to the scientists who know the maths and are agruing the opposite. But it sounds to me like two camps in a scientific argument. You however want to prevent any debate on the scientific level, by ruling that these men are not arguing science.

They aren't arguing science if they use an area of mathematics that just doesn't work in relation to the area they're discussing.
The thing is, I like reading proper ID arguments like the teleological argument e.t.c. even if I don't find them convincing they're still rigorous and well thought out and thought provoking.
My problem with the kind of ID arguments made in the States and the kind that is currently popular is that they when they try to tackle evolution scientifically they literally use the "wrong" science, stuff that just doesn't apply to evolution or by saying evolution contradicts other areas of science it has no relation to.
When they aren't doing this, they publish a philosophical arguement on ID, which is fine, except that it isn't science.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:


So 'man has ascended from lower forms of life' is not a scientific statement by your definition. One would have to describe the mechanisms involved before it could be accepted as science. As I said before, that seems a very narrow definition to me.



I imagine it is in the Information Theory mathematics as applied to irreducible complexity. Are you saying these mathematicians and biologists are just making assertions without offering their reasoning? What do you think of, for example: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm?



Now you answer me - what do you say about Sternberg?

Oh no... You're not getting away with that. Where in that article does he rigorously apply his concepts of conservation of information to biology? I could simply respond with http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/writing/design.html... Which addresses his misapplications. Which not only highlights the lack of rigour held in ID, but also does away with your claim that IDers aren't being fairly addressed.

So we're still short a theory of intelligent design. All you've done is given an example of how concepts of specified information cannot be applied to biology.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

They aren't arguing science if they use an area of mathematics that just doesn't work in relation to the area they're discussing.
The thing is, I like reading proper ID arguments like the teleological argument e.t.c. even if I don't find them convincing they're still rigorous and well thought out and thought provoking.
My problem with the kind of ID arguments made in the States and the kind that is currently popular is that they when the try to tackle evolution scientifically the literal use the "wrong" science, stuff that just doesn't apply to evolution or by saying evolution contradicts other areas of science it has no relation to.
When they aren't doing this, they publish an philosophical arguement on ID, which is fine, except that it isn't science.

OK, my friend, I see the differences in terminology we are using. I can't agree with you that any of this constitutes non-science. The opponent will always be wrong about their science, otherwise they would not be our opponents.

I've said all I can say without us going around in circles. You have helped me more clearly understand your thinking on the matter. Thank you.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Which not only highlights the lack of rigour held in ID, but also does away with your claim that IDers aren't being fairly addressed.

In that man's opinion. Obviously the ID writers would refute that. You are asking us to trust your assessment. If you have a PhD in maths I would certainly give your opinion weight - just like I do theirs. But your attempt to rubbish the work of scientists as non-science is just scientism.

I'm glad to see some take time to challenge ID or creationist scientists in a scientific way. Most of the treatment meted out to them and to evolutionists who tolerate them is far from fair.

So we're still short a theory of intelligent design. All you've done is given an example of how concepts of specified information cannot be applied to biology.

Again, in your opinion. Accepting what that author tells you.

Oh, I forgot to ask again about Sternberg.

Finally, to all on this debate: it would be good to hear what scientific credentials you have. All I have is 'o' level physics. I've done some further reading on topics that interest me, but nothing detailed.

Hm, I posted once or twice but I don't think I count as being in this debate ^^

wolfsbane,

But your attempt to rubbish the work of scientists as non-science is just scientism.

Just because a scientist expresses an opinion, that doesn't mean the opinion is science, philosophy or otherwise.

Scofflaw

Currently held qualifications:

BSc Hons Geology, Minor Botany
MSc Environmental Resource Management (mostly Ecology & Hydrology)
1 year Theology (Open Learning - did not complete the remaining years)

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, wolfsbane, I wondered if you had read this article on Falsifiability? it seems accurate enough, and might give you some insight into why people keep saying Creationism is unscientific.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

In that man's opinion. Obviously the ID writers would refute that. You are asking us to trust your assessment. If you have a PhD in maths I would certainly give your opinion weight - just like I do theirs. But your attempt to rubbish the work of scientists as non-science is just scientism.

I'm glad to see some take time to challenge ID or creationist scientists in a scientific way. Most of the treatment meted out to them and to evolutionists who tolerate them is far from fair.

Again, in your opinion. Accepting what that author tells you.

No, it is not just mine and 'that man's' opinion. It is the opinion of the scientific community. As I have said before: If IDers want the debate to continue, then they must tender a scientific theory of ID. I have asked you several times to produce references to such a theory, and you have not done so. Articles such as Dembski's, while philosophically interesting, do not define a scientific theory of ID.

So here we are, several posts later. You still complaining about Intelligent Design not being considered scientific, yet failing to produce a scientific theory of ID. In an earlier post you said ID could be tested "by demonstrating non-intelligent design could not have done it". How would this be demonstrated? How could the parameters of an intelligent design be applied to biology?

So again I must ask: What is the scientific theory of ID? And how can it be tested using the scientific method?

Oh, I forgot to ask again about Sternberg.

What would you like to know about him?

Finally, to all on this debate: it would be good to hear what scientific credentials you have. All I have is 'o' level physics. I've done some further reading on topics that interest me, but nothing detailed.

3rd year of a 4 year science degree (Experimental and Mathematical Physics). Why?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:


OK, my friend, I see the differences in terminology we are using. I can't agree with you that any of this constitutes non-science. The opponent will always be wrong about their science, otherwise they would not be our opponents.

I've said all I can say without us going around in circles. You have helped me more clearly understand your thinking on the matter. Thank you.

Cheers for sticking it out man. Same here. Thanks for taking the time.

I'm in the Third Year of a Theoretical Physics degree.
Anyway, the debate has been great I'll see you on the boards again sometime.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:


OK, my friend, I see the differences in terminology we are using. I can't agree with you that any of this constitutes non-science. The opponent will always be wrong about their science, otherwise they would not be our opponents.

I've said all I can say without us going around in circles. You have helped me more clearly understand your thinking on the matter. Thank you.

Amen to that brother. I have learned a bunch as well. God Bless all of you for your time and patience.

Aw, I love when a debate ends in a civil way

robindch

> Some on this board indeed, who would bar a hearing not only
> to creationist scientists

Who are you accusing of wanting to censor whom? You're making quite a serious accusation about somebody and you should back it up.

> But most evolutionists refuse to accept that their peers who hold to
> a non-evolutionist interpretation deserve to be heard.

Completely untrue. Creationists have a massive publicity machine which has produced the figures which I quoted above, that 85% believe that there is at least some truth to it. I'm finding it really difficult to beleive that you honestly think that this massive majority is somehow an oppressed minority!

And what do you think about the case of that philosopher who made a few pointed jokes about Creationism and had the stuffing knocked out of him on his way to work one morning? That story is here:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/06/mirecki_treated_after_roadside_beating/?city_local

Who are the thought-police here? The 0.15% who are scientists, or the 85% who are creationists in some way?

> The God who created a fully functional man did the same with the
> universe. You might not believe the story, but you should see it is
> internally consistent

I'm not arguing about its internal consistency, because it's completely consistent and that's what's being (almost-pointlessly) satirized by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What's the difference between saying that 'god' created the universe and the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' created the universe? Philosophically, there's absolutely none, and that's what renders creationism worthless as a description, because it describes nothing.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

Sapien said:


That, and to remove the stumbling-block to faith that a discredited bible produces.

So you do not suppose that the theses of creation science constitute a priori reasons to believe in the historicity of the bible?

samb

Complex Specified Information
Given a means of measuring information and determining its complexity, we turn now to the distinction between specified and unspecified information. This is a vast topic whose full elucidation is beyond the scope of this paper (the details can be found in my monograph The Design Inference). Nonetheless, in what follows I shall try to make this distinction intelligible, and offer some hints on how to make it rigorous. For an intuitive grasp of the difference between specified and unspecified information, consider the following example. Suppose an archer stands 50 meters from a large blank wall with bow and arrow in hand. The wall, let us say, is sufficiently large that the archer cannot help but hit it. Consider now two alternative scenarios. In the first scenario the archer simply shoots at the wall. In the second scenario the archer first paints a target on the wall, and then shoots at the wall, squarely hitting the target's bull's-eye. Let us suppose that in both scenarios where the arrow lands is identical. In both scenarios the arrow might have landed anywhere on the wall. What's more, any place where it might land is highly improbable. It follows that in both scenarios highly complex information is actualized. Yet the conclusions we draw from these scenarios are very different. In the first scenario we can conclude absolutely nothing about the archer's ability as an archer, whereas in the second scenario we have evidence of the archer's skill.

The obvious difference between the two scenarios is of course that in the first the information follows no pattern whereas in the second it does. Now the information that tends to interest us as rational inquirers generally, and scientists in particular, is not the actualization of arbitrary possibilities which correspond to no patterns, but rather the actualization of circumscribed possibilities which do correspond to patterns. There's more. Patterned information, though a step in the right direction, still doesn't quite get us specified information. The problem is that patterns can be concocted after the fact so that instead of helping elucidate information, the patterns are merely read off already actualized information.

To see this, consider a third scenario in which an archer shoots at a wall. As before, we suppose the archer stands 50 meters from a large blank wall with bow and arrow in hand, the wall being so large that the archer cannot help but hit it. And as in the first scenario, the archer shoots at the wall while it is still blank. But this time suppose that after having shot the arrow, and finding the arrow stuck in the wall, the archer paints a target around the arrow so that the arrow sticks squarely in the bull's-eye. Let us suppose further that the precise place where the arrow lands in this scenario is identical with where it landed in the first two scenarios. Since any place where the arrow might land is highly improbable, in this as in the other scenarios highly complex information has been actualized. What's more, since the information corresponds to a pattern, we can even say that in this third scenario highly complex patterned information has been actualized. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to say that highly complex specified information has been actualized. Of the three scenarios, only the information in the second scenario is specified. In that scenario, by first painting the target and then shooting the arrow, the pattern is given independently of the information. On the other hand, in this, the third scenario, by first shooting the arrow and then painting the target around it, the pattern is merely read off the information.

Specified information is always patterned information, but patterned information is not always specified information. For specified information not just any pattern will do. We therefore distinguish between the "good" patterns and the "bad" patterns. The "good" patterns will henceforth be called specifications. Specifications are the independently given patterns that are not simply read off information. By contrast, the "bad" patterns will be called fabrications. Fabrications are the post hoc patterns that are simply read off already existing information.

Unlike specifications, fabrications are wholly unenlightening. We are no better off with a fabrication than without one. This is clear from comparing the first and third scenarios. Whether an arrow lands on a blank wall and the wall stays blank (as in the first scenario), or an arrow lands on a blank wall and a target is then painted around the arrow (as in the third scenario), any conclusions we draw about the arrow's flight remain the same. In either case chance is as good an explanation as any for the arrow's flight. The fact that the target in the third scenario constitutes a pattern makes no difference since the pattern is constructed entirely in response to where the arrow lands. Only when the pattern is given independently of the arrow's flight does a hypothesis other than chance come into play. Thus only in the second scenario does it make sense to ask whether we are dealing with a skilled archer. Only in the second scenario does the pattern constitute a specification. In the third scenario the pattern constitutes a mere fabrication.

ID is the fabrication. The target is drawn after the event. With neo-darwinian evolution many arrows are fired and some will hit the predetermined target (i.e the genetic mix that will best generate offspring). The archer does not reqiure skill if he has enough throws, in nature he clearly does.

Scofflaw

Hmm. If we haven't quite finished here, I have a couple of questions I wouldn't mind having answered:

1. where in the Bible does it say that it is the word of God?
2. if it does not say it explicitly, how do we know it's the word of God?
3. if the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, is it the final Testament?

I have another couple, but they kind of branch off those ones, so I'll see if I get any replies before asking them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

WRT comments elsewhere about how people like Ken Ham of AnswersInGenesis fabricate 'facts' to make large amounts of money from the honest, but unwary, faithful, here's an interesting article from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:

http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/stranger-than-fiction-the-fabrication-of-fact/2006/01/15/1137259943542.html

Worth noting is this bit from towards the end:

Emotions can be more easily manipulated than our intellect. However, when commercial and political organisations and their marketing and public relations hired gunslingers cannot successfully manipulate us in this way, largely because of an increasingly savvy media audience, they present their fictitious messages of persuasion as truth.

By so doing, they hope to appeal to our rational faculty and our preference for truth. Their methods, as the earlier examples indicate, are as covert as they are manipulative and deceitful. And it goes without saying that as such, they are totally unethical and objectionable.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

here's an interesting article from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:

I'm pressed for time, guys, so pardon my jumping to the last post. I'll get back to the others tommorrow, God-willing.

Thanks for pointing us to a valuable article, robindch. I agree, the best deceptions come mixed with truth or appealing to our regard for it. Gullibility is no virtue, that's why I'm happy to test everything. I'm especially careful about orthoxodies that need muzzles for their opponents.