The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[JoeyKnothead]

I challenge you to show you speak truth regarding the following...
1. God exists
2. God can give stuff.

God is above the ability of science to deal with. The innumerable proofs for God fall outside the sandbox of science.

Claims of Santa Claus suffer the same fate.

Why post that question on a science forum?

You posted that claim on a science forum. By exposing that claim as unsupportable, we all now have more data for considering the veracity of your claims.

3. Traits are among the given.
4. Evolution is one of those given traits.

If we see a trait in a creature, or all creatures that were created, how would it possibly not be a part of the way they were created? It fits all the evidence we do have, the fossil record, etc. However, since science cannot detect anything to do with God, it falls under the firm category of belief alone.

So we see your claims don't meet scientfic rigor, yet you post them in a science forum (your term).

When people pretend science does or could or should cover these things, it is inevitable that we see that only faith is involved in reality, not fact or evidence itself, knowledge or science in any real sense of the word.

Notice how our claimant accuses others, somewhat libelously, of "pretending", as the claimant admits their own claims do not meet the standards of evidence we might reasonably expect in a science forum.

5. Adam existed.
6. Evolution was lightning fast in Adam's day.

Since it is established here by all responses so far, that science has no possible way of knowing, the only way to speak the truth about what and when and how God created is to read His word on the matter.

Again, we see our claimant fesses to an inability to support their claims with scientific rigor, and can make more claims...

I challenge you to show you speak truth regarding the following...

6b. God created (what?).
6c. God has a printed catalog of his "word".

Now, within that framework, using both the evidence from science and Scripture,...

Where have you established this "Scripture" is a reliable, accurate record of claims it presents?

...it is a simple matter to deduce that whatever happened back then happened in a short time period. This we know because Adam did not live all that long ago.

I refer folks to where our claimant says science can't support his claim of this Adam feller even existing, yet now our claimant -ahem- pretends as if Adam ever existed.

Then, looking at the fossil record, we see that many different creatures that are very similar existed. That would likely mean that these similar creatures, for the most part, adapted and changed (evolved) from the same original created kind. Elementary.

I'm thinking your claims here are more kindergarteny than elementary.

Where, in amongst any of that, have you shown evolution was "lightning fast"?
Remember, the bible is not considered authoritative in the Science & Christianity subforum.

Who or what do you propose created these "kinds"?

Science has no way of knowing.

We see yet again your claims do not meet scientific vigor.

They simply use a belief that there is no God since they can't see Him, and explain it all accordingly.

Do you consider such a scientifically rigorous methodology?

No. We believe because it is true. Believing is not what makes it true.

Then what's all that about faith?

Faith does not mean if we choose to try to believe, that this then is what makes God true, or history, or last week, or creation etc. He must first be true, and then when we 'plug in' to the power, we partake also. (have faith grow)

'We believe it, it's just we can't put us no scientific vigor to it' leads me to conclude you're just here to preach in the science forum.

I make no claims regarding the early universe.

But does science? Ever heard of the big bang?

I'm not gonna be drawn into defending claims I do not make.

Retracting unsupportable claims is the honorable thing to do.

Great, and since science can support NO origin claims with anything but belief, do the honorable thing!

I've done the honorable thing by retracting or supporting claims I make, and not making claims I know I can't support.

Your turn.

[dad1]

Claims of Santa Claus suffer the same fate.

Amazing how little science can cover! Add that to the list. I know little kids that knew whether there was a Santa or not. (even if they played along to get the presents etc for fun) Science can't even reach that bar!

You posted that claim on a science forum. By exposing that claim as unsupportable, we all now have more data for considering the veracity of your claims.

Learn the difference between can be supported and cannot be supported or denied by science. When science fails and drifts off into belief only la la land, we look for support elsewhere.

So we see your claims don't meet scientfic rigor, yet you post them in a science forum (your term).

Yes the thing that matters on a science forum is to learn and see how science really is limited in what it does and can cover. AFTER that, anyone that even pretends there is and science rigor involved stands exposed as false. The evidence itself, unmolested and unsprayed by the belies of science does fit the record of the bible.

Notice how our claimant accuses others, somewhat libelously, of "pretending", as the claimant admits their own claims do not meet the standards of evidence we might reasonably expect in a science forum.

There are no science standards for anything to do with creation, or how evolving happened in the dawn of history or etc etc etc etc etc etc. No one could reasonably expect science to be able to cover these things. It is very appropriate to divest all evidences we do actually and really have, like a fossil record, of interpretations and beliefs of a so called science that has no clue either way!!

Again, we see our claimant fesses to an inability to support their claims with scientific rigor, and can make more claims...

False. We see the poster looking at what we do know and evidence we do have, as well as not dishonoring history and Scripture religiously for no reason.

Where have you established this "Scripture" is a reliable, accurate record of claims it presents?

You do not need to have that information presented on a science forum. You can remain ignorant. No one needs your opinion on whether Abraham or Noah or Adam lived. The only thing you need to do is support science claims about origins here, or fail and be the demo that you can't. End of story.

I refer folks to where our claimant says science can't support his claim of this Adam feller even existing, yet now our claimant -ahem- pretends as if Adam ever existed.

Science cannot deal with the historical record and Scripture record. All you can do is purposely choose not to believe it for no reason. You sure haven't posted science that supports such unreasoned denial.

Where, in amongst any of that, have you shown evolution was "lightning fast"?
Remember, the bible is not considered authoritative in the Science & Christianity subforum.

It need not be an authority, only an alternative belief that is well founded! Remember science has squat to say about it either way. You demonstrate that.

We see yet again your claims do not meet scientific vigor.

Why pretend there is any such thing as science vigor on creation or etc?? No such thing. That is why we see none posted from you or anyone else here.

Do you consider such a scientifically rigorous methodology?

Rather than assume there is no God for NO reason, I accept the world of evidences that poor little so called science religiously ignores.

'We believe it, it's just we can't put us no scientific vigor to it' leads me to conclude you're just here to preach in the science forum.

Those pretending there is scientific vigor on creation and never post any are preaching. Religious zealots for the belief set of so called science.

I'm not gonna be drawn into defending claims I do not make.

No problem. I would avoid the big bang fable as well if I were a diciple of science trying to look respectable here.

I've done the honorable thing by retracting or supporting claims I make, and not making claims I know I can't support.

How about supporting what science does claim?

[JoeyKnothead]

Claims of Santa Claus suffer the same fate.

Amazing how little science can cover! Add that to the list.

Yet here you are making god claims in a science forum.

I know little kids that knew whether there was a Santa or not.

And here we are, with adults declaring they know whether God exists or not.

Comparing your god claims to belief in Santa ain't the killer argument you think it is.

(even if they played along to get the presents etc for fun) Science can't even reach that bar!

Pascal's wager, anyone?

That science can't "reach the bar" of believing in unproven magical entities is not the killer argument you think it is.

Learn the difference between can be supported and cannot be supported or denied by science.

Says the guy posting god claims in a science forum

When science fails and drifts off into belief only la la land, we look for support elsewhere.

That "elsewhere" is TD&D, where the bible is accepted as, we'll, gospel.

In a science forum we should expect better than someone complaining about how science fails to support their claims.

Instead, we get preachers like you who equate assertion to fact, with no scientific process in between.

The liar lies and the preacher preaches.

So we see your claims don't meet scientfic rigor, yet you post them in a science forum (your term).

Yes the thing that matters on a science forum is to learn and see how science really is limited in what it does and can cover.

And what it's done here is to expose your inability to put truth to your god claims.

AFTER that, anyone that even pretends there is and science rigor involved stands exposed as false. The evidence itself, unmolested and unsprayed by the belies of science does fit the record of the bible.

Yet you've still not shown your god claims are truth. This is not a problem of science, but of your utter failure to show you speak truth.

Notice how our claimant accuses others, somewhat libelously, of "pretending", as the claimant admits their own claims do not meet the standards of evidence we might reasonably expect in a science forum.

There are no science standards for anything to do with creation, or how evolving happened in the dawn of history or etc etc etc etc etc etc.

More crying about how science can't help put truth to your god claims, is, frankly, intellectually pathetic. You posted those claims within the cover of the science forum, and now when called out on em, all you can do is bemoan the fact that you have no scientific support regarding your god claims.

No one could reasonably expect science to be able to cover these things.

As above, you posted em in a science forum, and now huff and puff because science can't help dig you out of the hole of your own digging.

It is very appropriate to divest all evidences we do actually and really have, like a fossil record, of interpretations and beliefs of a so called science that has no clue either way!!

So we disregard whatever it is you're getting at here, and note, by your own admission, that you have no scientific support for your god claims.

Where have you established this "Scripture" is a reliable, accurate record of claims it presents?

You do not need to have that information presented on a science forum.

Yet you seek to sneak tis "Scripture" into the forum.

You can remain ignorant.

I'm comfortable having the observer decide which one of us suffers us the most of that disease.

No one needs your opinion on whether Abraham or Noah or Adam lived.

Indeed. The best science is built on fact. And as we've seen, you've presented no facts that lend scientific credence to your claims regarding this Adam feller.

The only thing you need to do is support science claims about origins here, or fail and be the demo that you can't. End of story.

Site rules indicate I'm not required to support claims I've not made. If you have a problem with this, take it to the mods.

I do NOT know, nor do I claim to know, how "all this" came to be. How can I possibly support my lack of knowledge here beyond, "beats me"?

I refer folks to where our claimant says science can't support his claim of this Adam feller even existing, yet now our claimant -ahem- pretends as if Adam ever existed.

Science cannot deal with the historical record and Scripture record. All you can do is *purposely choose not to believe it for no reason*. You sure haven't posted science that supports such unreasoned denial.

*See 'Libel is not a valid argument', below...

Per site rules I'm not bound to support any counter argument to a claimant's claim, but am allowed to challenge those claims. Of course counter arguments can be useful. It's my contention that in the case of a claimant unable to put truth to their claims, who can only complain about anything but that failure, and who seeks to find some way out of that responsibility, the most prudent counter argument, the argument most likely to reflect the truth, is, "The liar lies and the preacher preaches."

Remember, the bible is not considered authoritative in the Science & Christianity subforum.

It need not be an authority, only an alternative belief that is well founded!

What scientific data supports the well of this foundedness?

Remember science has squat to say about it either way. You demonstrate that.

Yet here you are trying to seek the imprimatur of science for your religious claims.

We see yet again your claims do not meet scientific vigor.

Why pretend there is any such thing as science vigor on creation or etc??

I don't accuse you of "pretending", so why do you keep trying to libel me for simply seeking to determine if your claims are truth?

Think of it this way... Though I avoid overt claims, I do believe that much of evolution can be explained by certain associated theories / hypotheses. Should I try to convince others of their veracity, I wouldn't think they were "pretending" to disagree. I'd think I need to better tune my skills of convincing.

I find, and I think reason supports, this "pretending" angle is a support mechanism for when, in debate, one sees their own arguments as weak. "I'm so right, they gotta be 'pretending' not to believe me" strikes as either ignorant of why one's arguments may fail to convince, or combines with a possible narcissistic arrogance about one's own intellectual abilities.

*Libel is not a valid argument...

To my theist 'opponents', I say this... I trust that our disagreements can be built on many differences in interpretation of data or evidence, and even, if we say it, just on how we were brought up (with no nefarious intent). But what I don't say, to the general theist population, is that I think y'all just blindly reject, purposely "pretend", or anything other'n just disagree. That my arguments fail to convince should reflect my arguments, how I present em, or our differences as mentioned above.

Why should I need to libel the very folks I seek to convince? That's as goofy a methodology as telling the pretty thing she's an ugly old hag, then reaching in for a kiss.

Rather than assume there is no God for NO reason

Mine is not an assuming, but a concluding. I conclude that since you can't put truth to your god claims, the god you claim to exist most likely doesn't. Notice there, I leave the possibility of your specific god existing, I just -ahem- assume, by this point, your failure to show you speak truth better represents, well, your inability to show you speak truth.

I accept the world of evidences that poor little so called science religiously ignores.

Yet again we see our claimant has more libels than truths.

Those pretending there is scientific vigor on creation and never post any are preaching.

More libel.

I'm not gonna be drawn into defending claims I do not make.

No problem. I would avoid the big bang fable as well if I were a diciple of science trying to look respectable here.

Disciple.

I propose if you're gonna debate by libel, proper spelling might get you around folks thinking you're an idiot, thus earning you the 'respectable' moniker for yourself.

I've done the honorable thing by retracting or supporting claims I make, and not making claims I know I can't support.

How about supporting what science does claim?

Itesay ulesray dicateinay Iay amay otnay esponsibleray orfay laimscay Iay on'tday akemay.

That's the only other language I can tell that in.

Funnily enough my "Your turn" comment at the end came up missing in our claimant's response here.

[dad1]

Yet here you are making god claims in a science forum.

No. I am pointing out that science cannot make anti God claims or any claims about origins. That is all belief based. The claims God made already in the record of Genesis are not science claims. Science is too small to be able to deal with it in any way.

And here we are, with adults declaring they know whether God exists or not.

If you were to do that it would not be because of science, but despite science.

Comparing your god claims to belief in Santa ain't the killer argument you think it is.

The list of things science cannot deal with is longer than Santa's naughty list.

That science can't "reach the bar" of believing in unproven magical entities is not the killer argument you think it is.

It doesn't need to be. All it needs to do is kick science out of the origin issues because of ineptitude.

Says the guy posting god claims in a science forum

That is one of the things science does not cover.

That "elsewhere" is TD&D, where the bible is accepted as, we'll, gospel.

It does not matter where else people look for other beliefs once they realize that science is just belief based on all things having to do with creation.

In a science forum we should expect better than someone complaining about how science fails to support their claims.

Not an issue, because science and evidence does support Genesis. What matters is that you cannot support science claims on Genesis!

Instead, we get preachers like you who equate assertion to fact, with no scientific process in between.

The preachers here are science preachers flogging beliefs. They like to pretend it is sciency. The record of creation that is thousands of years old pre dates science. It is entered into evidence on other merits, and science cannot be entered in at all, since it has no merit to it's beliefs and no support.

And what it's done here is to expose your inability to put truth to your god claims.

Trying to shift the burden of proof when your science tales get destroyed is no excuse. Scripture claims are not what needs to be supported on a science forum. They are to be believed or not. Science is also to be believed or not but has presented it's beliefs in an insidious and dishonest and misleading way.

More crying about how science can't help put truth to your god claims

It is not me that needs to cry when science is unable to offer anything but faith based fables. That is reason for me to laugh and you to cry.

As above, you posted em in a science forum, and now huff and puff because science can't help dig you out of the hole of your own digging.

It is not a hole to depart from faith. Unless you have more than a belief basis for what you falsely call science claims, the word science should not even be used. That does violence to the English language.

So we disregard whatever it is you're getting at here, and note, by your own admission, that you have no scientific support for your god claims.

My admission is that you have no scientific support for any origin claims. That is why you try to be clever and avoid the truth. No one needs modern physical only science support for anything that is above and beyond the ability and scope of that discipline. This means you are not qualified to speak about creation in the name of science on any science forum, ever.

Yet you seek to sneak tis "Scripture" into the forum.

The OP did that. The claim was that Scripture was false basically and harmful to believe.

I'm comfortable having the observer decide which one of us suffers us the most of that disease.

It is not a vote. It is either post some intelligent and reasoned defense of your belief centered fables that you thought were science, or not. You have gone with the latter.

Indeed. The best science is built on fact. And as we've seen, you've presented no facts that lend scientific credence to your claims regarding this Adam feller.

Then if you have no facts that tell us whether it is true or false, I would not brag about that ignorance.

Site rules indicate I'm not required to support claims I've not made. If you have a problem with this, take it to the mods.

Science makes claims. If you are not here to support them, fine. Do whatever else you do other than talk science here I guess.

I do NOT know, nor do I claim to know, how "all this" came to be. How can I possibly support my lack of knowledge here beyond, "beats me"?

If you renounce the claims of science that does claim in detail how all this originated, fine!

*See 'Libel is not a valid argument', below...

Except that pulling random words out of a hat does not make them applicable or valid. The unquestionable demonstrated fact here that science cannot tell us anything about Adam or creation is not 'libel'. It is absolute fact. If you claim otherwise, post the support. Ha

Per site rules I'm not bound to support any counter argument to a claimant's claim[/quote
Me too. The fables that cannot be supported of origin sciences need no counter argument. If anyone claims that belief in Genesis or anything else is harmful, therefore, I need no counter argument.

What scientific data supports the well of this foundedness?

Science does not apply to pre science history unless you can prove it does. Strawman argument.

Yet here you are trying to seek the imprimatur of science for your religious claims.

Not at all. Why would any rational person falsely imagine that science could deal with Genesis and creation? I need no science to validate God's record of creation, and none exists to either confirm or deny. All I demand is that science be honest about it's handicaps.

I don't accuse you of "pretending", so why do you keep trying to libel me for simply seeking to determine if your claims are truth?

It was not me that was pretending. Be honest. Misrepresenting what I said overtly is not science, or good manners, or true. The context (obviously) that 'pretending' was used was that some people pretend that Genesis and God and creation should be under the purview of science. It is not. You cannot determine if Genesis is true, get over it. Science cannot determine if it is true or false anymore than a tadpole could swallow a whale.

Think of it this way... Though I avoid overt claims, I do believe that much of evolution can be explained by certain associated theories / hypotheses.

You believe. So do other people believe lots of things. Many of them can actually provide argument and reason and support as well for those beliefs!

Should I try to convince others of their veracity, I wouldn't think they were "pretending" to disagree. I'd think I need to better tune my skills of convincing.

If you had a case and support, then we could judge on it's merits. We have vague cheerleading so far that says nothing.

I find, and I think reason supports, this "pretending" angle is a support mechanism

You can conceptualize it any way you like. Bottom line is that if you had support for anything relating to the OP, or creation etc using science I think we would have seen that long ago. No use pretending. Where's the beef?

*Libel is not a valid argument...

Or a valid word for anything in the thread. Why pretend otherwise?

To my theist 'opponents', I say this... I trust that our disagreements can be built on many differences in interpretation of data or evidence, and even, if we say it, just on how we were brought up (with no nefarious intent). But what I don't say, to the general theist population, is that I think y'all just blindly reject, purposely "pretend", or anything other'n just disagree. That my arguments fail to convince should reflect my arguments, how I present em, or our differences as mentioned above.

The issue in NOT anyone pretending to have beliefs! The issue is people with beliefs pretending it is science!

Mine is not an assuming, but a concluding. I conclude that since you can't put truth to your god claims, the god you claim to exist most likely doesn't.

If you had more than beliefs for science dealing with those things, you could talk. Science is not able to be a player in determining anything about God, period. It is not even out in left field, it is six feet under. It cannot be used for creation or anything spiritual, period. Ever.

Notice there, I leave the possibility of your specific god existing, I just -ahem- assume, by this point, your failure to show you speak truth better represents, well, your inability to show you speak truth.

The truth is that you have not shown and science here at all that is not belief based on any of these issues. That is the truth. Science cannot deal with God so it is not a failure to not have science to prove He exists! Science is sidelined on these things. Let's not pretend otherwise. It certainly is not something that we could or must use to prove God exists!

Yet again we see our claimant has more libels than truths.

Are you suggesting that science does not ignore miracles and prophesies and history, and Scripture etc? Ha

Those pretending there is scientific vigor on creation and never post any are preaching.

More libel.

Not in any way is that remotely related to a shadow of the truth. There is no scientific vigor that deals with God or creation. If you claim otherwise, post it.

I propose if you're gonna debate by libel, proper spelling might get you around folks thinking you're an idiot, thus earning you the 'respectable' moniker for yourself.

In lieu of support, try to find a typo. Nice.

That's the only other language I can tell that in.

English will do, thanks

Funnily enough my "Your turn" comment at the end came up missing in our claimant's response here.

Did that have some meaning that we all should be pondering so that it needed to be repeated?

[JoeyKnothead]

... The preachers here are science preachers flogging beliefs. They like to pretend it is sciency.

More libels.

This is theism folks. Where insults are the best science to be offered.

[dad1]

... The preachers here are science preachers flogging beliefs. They like to pretend it is sciency.

More libels.

This is theism folks. Where insults are the best science to be offered.

Call the truth anything you like. Unless you prove that there is more to origin science models than things that are belief based those that try to belittle Genesis or other beliefs are hypocrites and pulpit pounders. You are welcome to demonstrate that you do not fall in that category. In fact you have had many days to do so. What's wrong?

[JoeyKnothead]

... The preachers here are science preachers flogging beliefs. They like to pretend it is sciency.

More libels.

This is theism folks. Where insults are the best science to be offered.

Call the truth anything you like. Unless you prove that there is more to origin science models than things that are belief based those that try to belittle Genesis or other beliefs are hypocrites and pulpit pounders.

What part of SITE RULES INDICATE I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS I DO NOT MAKE are you failing to comprehend?

You are welcome to demonstrate that you do not fall in that category. In fact you have had many days to do so. What's wrong?

'Parently it's your inability to understand commonly used English words.

You've done nothing but libel folks and try to get me to support claims I do not make, all the while admitting you can't put truth to the claims you've been challenged to support.

The liar lies and the preacher preaches.

[brunumb]

The record of creation that is thousands of years old pre dates science. It is entered into evidence on other merits, and science cannot be entered in at all, since it has no merit to it's beliefs and no support.

WOW! That is about as backwards as one could make it. There is no creation record. The biblical story is just one among hundreds that humans have imagined over the ages. It has no merit or standing whatsoever and it is only propped up through the indoctrination of vulnerable minds In any case, science doesn't speak of creation. We use the scientific method to seek knowledge and sift out the imaginary from the real. Unlike the Bible, scientific theories are formulated because they are fully supported by evidence. Religion has nothing more than faith.


ETA: You mock the conclusions of millions of people who have worked over many centuries gathering mountains of information and knowledge about our world, and in return you present us with a few pages of anonymous speculation from ancient, primitive people. Once again, WOW!

[dad1]

What part of SITE RULES INDICATE I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS I DO NOT MAKE are you failing to comprehend?

I never expected you to be able to support the beliefs of science. What are you missing here? You can't. Remember also to make no claims that creation as per Genesis is not true also of course. Maybe find something you can support and stick to that, and post it. We wait.

'Parently it's your inability to understand commonly used English words.

The way they are misused, maybe. The trick is that is is not a lack of comprehension about a way someone abuses words. It is a refusal to play along in the abuse of the words.

You've done nothing but libel folks and try to get me to support claims I do not make, all the while admitting you can't put truth to the claims you've been challenged to support.

Do support only what you can and what you do claim. By the way, since it is not what science claims (such as about origins) what pray tell is it if anything you do say or claim??

The liar lies and the preacher preaches.

That is rich from someone misusing the word libel.

[dad1]

WOW! That is about as backwards as one could make it. There is no creation record.

Yet the OP is about that record. Genesis. Perhaps you mean that some disrespect that record and refuse to acknowledge it religiously? Do be clear.

The biblical story is just one among hundreds that humans have imagined over the ages.

As are the stories of origin sciences. So? We all have beliefs. I, unlike many here try to be respectful of them! What can never and should never be respected is fraud and beliefs that are offered as something other than beliefs. Those are the only beliefs that I call onto the carpet here.

It has no merit or standing whatsoever and it is only propped up through the indoctrination of vulnerable minds

As does not your opinion. So? I need no vote from you on beliefs. You do yours, I'll do mine.

In any case, science doesn't speak of creation. We use the scientific method to seek knowledge and sift out the imaginary from the real.

Of course science avoids that word. Yet it speaks incessantly about where they claim the universe and life came from! What sort of strange debilitating effect causes that, as well as denying it??

Unlike the Bible, scientific theories are formulated because they are fully supported by evidence.

That has been shown false here already. You have no evidence posted. You have posted beliefs and faith based stories falsely labeled as science. None of which you were able to support in the least. Yet we see the debilitating effect of science beliefs demonstrated by you here by a weird pretense that there is some sort of evidence for origin theories. There is not as you illustrate here a lot.

Religion has nothing more than faith.

Religion is a word we can apply to belief based ritualistic origin sciences. If you have anything more than faith to offer as support or any of those fables, what are you waiting for?? Until we see some, it has to be chalked up to some debilitating effect of your belief system that you thought was science. (or at least pretend is science - either one)