Humanity And Earth

[OrdinaryClay]

Could intelligent carbon based life arise on a planet without oil reserves? I don't think so, because intelligent life requires millions of years of evolution, in which time our ancestors all the way down to the first single cell organisms died and were buried and became oil.

 

We exist because the oil is there, because the oil represents the biological experiments that came before us. If God just made us, then there would be no need for oil, because he wouldn't have needed a hundreds of millions of years for us to evolve naturally.

 

Good point. I agree as to why we see oil, but you're making a large claim to say that you know how long it takes for intelligence to develop. So why exactly was it impossible for intelligent life to have formed during the Carboniferous , Permian or the Triassic? What were the biological limitations preventing such an evolutionary step forward. Don't forget the Cambrian explosion. I lot happened quickly. Also, don't forgot the mass extinction resets in evolution. IOW, while I agree there were steps that needed to be followed; one can not claim intelligence had to wait until now . If we were to assume continuously favorable conditions from let's say the Cambrian on forward then there is no reason intelligence could not have formed 100rds of millions of years ago. Would some carbon fuels existed sure.

 

In many ways though your observation makes my point. It is almost as if the earth was prepared for our being here. God new we needed what we needed.

 

Why add unnecessary complexity in the form of a supernatural creator.

Well no. We have no idea why the universe exists if you limit yourself to a materialistic process. Nor do we understnad why the nature of the universe is what it is. This is why the KCA and Teleological arguments for God are so strong.

[OrdinaryClay]

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

 

There being abundant resources for bacteria, it is like the planet was preloaded for bacteria. And humans would be part of that load, being that we are a resource for bacteria.

 

As a resource for bacteria, I'm not all that impressed with God's plan.

But bacteria can not understand physics or the origin of the universe.

[OrdinaryClay]

I figure that even without oil reserves people would have found ways to advance technologically.

 

There's an awful lot you can do with wood and wood fibre, if the incentive is there to be creative.

Yes, long chain carbon polymers from organic sources can, and will, be exploited. Would we have embarked on the industrial age just based on organic sources. Probably not. Will organic sources allow us to sustain our level of technology with 9 billion people on the planet. I doubt it.

[Shyone]

Why add unnecessary complexity in the form of a supernatural creator.

Well no. We have no idea why the universe exists if you limit yourself to a materialistic process. Nor do we understnad why the nature of the universe is what it is. This is why the KCA and Teleological arguments for God are so strong.

Let me correct your first statement:

 

We have no idea why the universe exists.

 

Saying "goddidit" does not provide an explanation of why anything is anything. It is a useless explanation, and unless you think the earth is the center of the universe (in any sense), then you should realize how massively insigificant we are in the "grand scheme of things."

 

Perhaps the problem is that any explanation other than god would be unacceptable to you.

 

Why does the earth exist? Condensation of hydrogen and byproducts of fusion from ancient stars contracting by gravity with asymmetry causing rotation.

 

Why does the universe exist? Vaccum expansion and quantum fluctuation resulting in production of mass (hydrogen).

 

Why do quantum fluctuations happen in a vacuum? Spontaneous ex nihilo creation of "virtual" particles of matter and antimatter that anihilate one another.

 

Why, why, why, just like a 5 year old, but 5 year olds quit asking when you say God did it and explain "he did it because he wanted to."

 

That's where you stopped asking, right?

 

I asked, "Why does god exist?" If you look through enough creation myths, you'll find out just why god exists.

 

If the answer you prefer is that "he just does", then the same answer could just as easily apply to the universe.

 

If you say God is "necessary", then you might as well say that the universe is necessary. Anything more than that is a bald unsubstantiated assertion with no basis in fact.

 

Especially when you can't establish that anything exists other than the universe.

[Dagan]

It is almost as if the earth was prepared for our being here. God new we needed what we needed.

 

Right now there's a flourescent light above my head that is so irritating it's making my eyes and my head hurt while I type this post.

 

But it's designed and placed here, as if someone expected me to work underneath it, prepared for my being here, so why does it bother me so much?

 

Ah. I understand. It's to make me long for something more, an after-work-life, when I can look forward to leaving this place because this place is not my home.

 

My employers really know what I needed, didn't they! A functional-but-annoying light so I can see my keyboard, but which also allows me to appreciate the after-work-life! As Brother Jeff would say, Glory!

[OrdinaryClay]

Why does the universe exist? Vaccum expansion and quantum fluctuation resulting in production of mass (hydrogen).

Please provide your reference for this claim.

[Dagan]

I figure that even without oil reserves people would have found ways to advance technologically.

 

There's an awful lot you can do with wood and wood fibre, if the incentive is there to be creative.

Yes, long chain carbon polymers from organic sources can, and will, be exploited. Would we have embarked on the industrial age just based on organic sources. Probably not. Will organic sources allow us to sustain our level of technology with 9 billion people on the planet. I doubt it.

 

Doubt all you want in this pointless game of "what if," but history shows that human beings adapt to whatever they have at hand. If oil-based fuels had not replaced steam power, who's to say what kind of advanced steam power technology we'd have today? For example, this company claims to have developed a steam engine capable of powering a regular-sized car.

 

It apparently runs on orange peels, palm oil, cottonseed oil, algae, used motor oil and fryer grease, as well as traditional fossil fuels, none of which required any modification to the engine. They have also burned propane, butane, natural gas and even powdered coal.

 

And our modern electronics technology, well, who's to say it couldn't have developed differently? It's based more on economics – what was cheap at the time – than what was made available by an intelligent designer.

[Shyone]

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

 

There being abundant resources for bacteria, it is like the planet was preloaded for bacteria. And humans would be part of that load, being that we are a resource for bacteria.

 

As a resource for bacteria, I'm not all that impressed with God's plan.

But bacteria can not understand physics or the origin of the universe.

How do you know what bacteria know?

 

You seem to think that humanity is a goal, when in fact it is a side effect. Homo sapiens sapiens has been around less than 1 million years while the earth has had life for about 3.5 billion years. Many primate species have come and gone in the past 10 million years, and there will likely be more to come.

 

Do you ever wonder why dogs howl at the moon? What do dolphin say to one another?

 

Perhaps you should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas. Then you might appreciate what the world looks like to a lobster.

[Shyone]

Why does the universe exist? Vaccum expansion and quantum fluctuation resulting in production of mass (hydrogen).

Please provide your reference for this claim.

The first person to propose this was Edward Tryon.

 

Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp. 396-397.

 

And then there's Kaufman:

 

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

 

Kaufmann, William J. 1985. Universe. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

 

Don't bother responding if all you are going to do is say, "But it's only a theory! You can't prove God didn't do it!"

 

I answered your question is a straightforward manner. I expect the same from you.

[agjohnson]

Shyone,

 

I googled some of the info in your post and came across this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

 

The link is mind blowing! The energy state of the universe is exactly zero! There's also a lot of other really interesting tidbits in the quotes.

[Petrel]

Perhaps you should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas. Then you might appreciate what the world looks like to a lobster.

I have an inordinate love of Prufrock.

[Petrel]

Additionally I'll note that the presence of fossil fuels was not necessary for our species' existence. We evolved and developed intelligence long before we drilled our first oil well. If we go extinct, which we eventually will, it's possible another intelligent species will arise. They may not have an industrial revolution quite like ours, but skyscrapers and airplanes are not necessary for life.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

People from other religions experience there god, are they right in claiming that there experience is evidence.

A example, ask a Muslim that has been on the Hajj to Mecca. They also have faith. How much does this qualify as evidence for you. Or to paraphrase william lane craig, a person that believes when the evidence contradicts the holy spirit the holy spirit should be the way to go.

I think we talked about this in a previous thread some, again all I can say is that the total set of evidence (including but not limited to the Holy Spirit) in my view points to Christ as the God worthy of worship and the one I will follow.

 

I think what William Lane Craig says is that he would believe even if there were no objective evidence because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I agree. This is very different from your paraphrase.

In the original paraphrase I realized after typing it that is was wrong. Forgive me it was 6 am and I hadn't slept.

Some kinds of things that fit the bill

 

What, then, should be our approach in apologetics? It should be something like this: 'My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it is true, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true. Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself.' [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 48.]

 

And here is the exact quote of what I was trying to say

 

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]

 

#

 

 

# The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God's Holy Spirit. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 37.]

 

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 35-36.]

 

all quotes from this site

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_WLCraig.htm

 

And this guy calls himself a scholar, its a show on his part.

[agnosticator]

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

 

If it wasn't for all the life on earth previous to Homo sapiens, we wouldn't be. We are their offspring, differing in degree much more than kind. Special my ass.

 

Man created the Biblegod. Isn't that special?

[agnosticator]

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 35-36.]

 

all quotes from this site

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_WLCraig.htm

 

And this guy calls himself a scholar, its a show on his part.

 

This is why apologetics is b.s. They use worldly vain philosophy, which the N.T. warns against, to prove that Christianity is true. Then they fall back on the usual Christian devotional program and their "faith" to show they are saved and righteous, when they are really false prophets. Apologetics isn't a special revelation from the Biblegod. It's attempting to change faith by putting one foot in the world (reason, logic, and philosophy) while putting the other on Biblical faith. This is NOT "being in the world, but not of it". It's speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They can't just believe the story. They have to prove it with evidence even though it is lacking.

[Brakeman]

Despite the demand for oil and the population increases we currently see, Economic demand is not linear. As oil reserves start to dwindle, panic ensues and the price starts to rise. This rise in price fuels alternative energies. All of the resources will follow this trend. As resources get rare, they get expensive. The lack of money stops the poor from using more resources. The poor starve, or they get wise enough to have fewer children to feed and house.

 

The subsequent drop in population will eventually balance with resource reserves.

 

There is no reason to think mankind won't be here for thousands of more years.

[centauri]

OrdinaryClay, you said, "I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence."

 

Just what is this "testimony from the Holy Spirit?" Did the spirit speak to you, or give you some sort of feeling? What?

 

Sorry Sage!

 

Clay's just played the ultimate trump card - subjective experience.

 

Whatever he says in his reply, so long as it's true for him, that's all that matters. Evidence can go f**k itself.

 

Just as nobody can dispute the fact that I'm currently feeling hungry, so nobody can dispute/refute/counter/challenge or call into question Clay's subjective experience of the Holy Spirit. It's an unassailable position which he feels totally secure and comfortable in. It's also supremely convenient that this agent of spiritual certainty is invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable, hence there being no need for any kind of objective evidence to back up his claim.

 

You'll have the same amount of success (zilch!) when it comes to tackling him over the authorship of certain books of the Bible. Accordingly to Clay, it wouldn't matter if Paul hadn't written any of the letters attributed to him. Somehow (mechanism unknown... The Holy Spirit again?) Clay KNOWS they are the word of God.

Applause.

I found this to be a superb summary of a tactic that gets employed over and over.

Your observation is so clear and to the point I took the liberty of copying it for future reference.

It's an airtight rationalization system at work here, and impervious to anything outside of itself.

[centauri]

excerpt:

...Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 35-36.]

 

all quotes from this site

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_WLCraig.htm

 

And this guy calls himself a scholar, its a show on his part.

What a gem this quote is, absolutely priceless.

The stunning arrogance of Christianity and Craig is in full bloom.

So, according to Craig, Jews don't become Christians because they love darkness and want nothing to do with God.

It never even occurs to Craig that people can reject his version of God without having to reject the concept of God.

He's completely stuck inside a theological sandbox of his own making and thinks that everyone else must pay tribute to it.

[bornagainathiest]

OrdinaryClay, you said, "I also have faith, and a testimony from the Holy Spirit that can never be replaced by evidence."

 

Just what is this "testimony from the Holy Spirit?" Did the spirit speak to you, or give you some sort of feeling? What?

 

Sorry Sage!

 

Clay's just played the ultimate trump card - subjective experience.

 

Whatever he says in his reply, so long as it's true for him, that's all that matters. Evidence can go f**k itself.

 

Just as nobody can dispute the fact that I'm currently feeling hungry, so nobody can dispute/refute/counter/challenge or call into question Clay's subjective experience of the Holy Spirit. It's an unassailable position which he feels totally secure and comfortable in. It's also supremely convenient that this agent of spiritual certainty is invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable, hence there being no need for any kind of objective evidence to back up his claim.

 

You'll have the same amount of success (zilch!) when it comes to tackling him over the authorship of certain books of the Bible. Accordingly to Clay, it wouldn't matter if Paul hadn't written any of the letters attributed to him. Somehow (mechanism unknown... The Holy Spirit again?) Clay KNOWS they are the word of God.

Applause.

I found this to be a superb summary of a tactic that gets employed over and over.

Your observation is so clear and to the point I took the liberty of copying it for future reference.

It's an airtight rationalization system at work here, and impervious to anything outside of itself.

 

Thanks Centauri.

 

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but I see the tactical options of the religulous in their war on rationality and reason as follows; Fight Back, Retreat to High Ground or Yield.

 

Dealing with the last one first, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that all Gods are man-made myths, a Theist should do the honest and reasonable thing and yield to the obvious. Sadly that rarely happens.

 

More often they Fight and/or Retreat.

Fighting is easy to quantify. It consists of using Apologetic Arguments as a substitute for real, hard evidence or shifting the goal-posts so that inadmissible evidence (supposed eyewitness testimony from the Bible) becomes admissible. Fighting also consists of citing only those examples natural phenomena and/or those scientific papers that appear to confirm their beliefs. Performing actual miracles (re-growing amputated limbs, raising ten month dead corpses, dividing the Hudson river, drinking deadly poisons without ill-effects, etc.) do not count as fighting back because these things have never, are never and will never be done. Period.

 

However Centauri, what we saw with Clay was a classic Retreat-to-High-Ground Maneuver.

His unassailable high ground, in this case, was his subjective experience of the Holy Spirit. As you say, it's airtight and impervious, which explains why it's used with such mind-numbing regularity.

B-u-u-u-t there may be a way to undermine this impregnable-looking fortification. If Clay's personal experience of the Holy Spirit was just that, an intensely singular, individual and personal "inner' experience that (by definition) cannot be shared with anyone else, how the hell does he know that it's exactly the same experience that St. Bill or any other of members of Team WLC have had? Sorry, but it cuts both ways. If you say, 'No. This is personal - so nobody else can know it as I experience it', your only option is to say that you believe and have faith that their inner experience is the same as yours. You can never know that with the same certainty as any shared, objective, externally verified experience. By relying on inner 'knowing' you end up not 'knowing' if your fellow Xians 'know' what you 'know'.

So, Retreat to the High Ground of subjective experience if you want to Clay, but you risk hurting the unity of the Body of Christ by doing so.

 

Anyway Centauri, just to fill you in on a few more details...

 

In the other forum, where I first encountered Clay, we covered a range of topics, including Prophecy. We only discussed OT prophecies about Jesus, not prophecies in general, such as those pertaining to Egypt, to Babylon, to other nations and cities, etc. However, Clay did mention that those about Jesus are true. On that point he was most insistent.

Ok then...

 

If the NT Epistles attributed to Paul don't even have to written by that person (because Clay just KNOWS they are God's Word), but the OT prophecies about Jesus have to be true, where does that leave us?

Perhaps the Books of Joel, Amos, Ezekiel, etc. don't have to be written by those people either? Just so long as the prophecies about Jesus are true - no matter who wrote them.

What if Clay extends the 'Doesn't-Matter-Who-Wrote-It' rule from Paul's Epistles to the whole Bible?

Or if he insists that the OT Prophets did write the books attributed to them?

Or if he says that it does matter about the authorship of the OT and the Gospels, but not certain other parts of the NT?

 

In any of these scenarios he's got to justify how and why he can pick and choose which Books of the Bible, which Prophets and which Epistles are authentic and which don't have to be.

 

Perhaps a new career in the cherry-picking industry is waiting for him and those like him?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

If Homo Sapiens were to last another 500 years, unlikely, but let's assume.

Sadly, here's something we finally might agree on.

 

Then any species capable of mining resources would have nothing left to exploit just as we would have had nothing to exploit had a species capable of mining existed prior to us. For example, had all the oil been drawn before us it can be argued we would not have developed technologically as we have.

True. But you can still burn wood and make coal. And actually, the Stirling engine would have replaced the oil based machines, so I really don't see a huge problem if oil was missing. The MGTY machine also works fine, it's more efficient than our gas guzzlers. The reason why these alternatives won't take off on the market is more political/economical than anything else.

 

The alternative technology does exist.

 

Oh, and I just remembered, the Vankel engine, the one used in diesel engines, were originally made to run on other fuels than oil or diesel.

 

This is just one among many many ways we are special and very unique. It is like the planet was preloaded for Humanity. Of course, I believe that was part of God's plan.

Eh, you're saying that oil, the selection of the market, proves that the world was made for us?

 

Bullshit all the way. You obviously don't have the first clue of things...

 

It's like saying that Microsoft, and the sales of Windows around the world, proves that God intended Bill Gates to be one of the richest agnostics in the world. The world was pre-made for MS Windows to exist.

 

Again, look up Stirling engine (invented long time before the combustion engine) and the Vankel engine (or any rotary engine).

 

The combustion engine was just a selection by the market forces.

[Ouroboros]

None of them have developed physics and can ponder the origin of the universe.

Why does that prove that God exists? We are special in some way, therefore God?

 

Ants are special too. And cockroaches. And hummingbirds. Even if there are trillions of species, each one special, one of them being different than the other doesn't prove God.

 

In your mind, you are starting with what you want to prove, and then you put whatever you find into that proof. Nothing you've said prove anything. It only strengthens your already existing belief, nothing else.

[Ouroboros]

No, the fact that we are special does not require a designer per se, but this specialness when viewed in the total context makes a circumstantial case. In our courts of law people are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence. There is a lot to be said for circumstantial evidence. Science is finding we and our situation are far more special then we ever imagined.

So you're saying that our judicial system is an example of a perfect system to prove things?

 

Circumstantial evidence is the same as absolute proof?

 

Are you high on som'tin'? Had to much weed this morning?

[Ouroboros]

I could, but I believe the evidence goes far beyond simply what I mention here. I believe in Christ for much greater reasons then simply what I mentioned here. In my life, in my view, the evidence is overwhelming that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His Christ exist and care for each one of us in a very special way as described in the New Testament.

Of course you believe all those things. You're crazy and delusional, so it makes perfect sense that you believe all that stuff.

[Ouroboros]

My first point is that the resources we needed to produce our modern civilization would not have existed had there been another species that consumed them. These resources were critical to our development as a technological species. It can be argued that we would not have developed into a 6.7 billion mass of humanity had we not had these assets to fuel our technology. These resources are needed to get the ball rolling in an industrial society. Our industrial society is what fueled our ability to further exploit other resources such as nuclear, etc ...

There were (and are) alternative engines, but they didn't take root because Ford picked the combustion engine. He had to pick one, he picked that one. At that time, it was easier to make, and it was more efficient at that point. But other engines did already exist, and not long after they were just as good replacements, but then it was too late to get a hold of the market.

 

It's just like the battle between the HD-DVD and Blue Ray. Just because Blue Ray won the market, it doesn't suggest that God made it so or even that it was the better format. It won out mostly because of Sony had more influence on the movie production, and the pre-configured blue ray player in the PS3.

 

During the first years of VCR, there was a battle too. The Betamax system was better than VHS, but lost anyway. It's not about right or best in form of quality or essence, but which one is best to take the market.

 

The same happened with Microsoft. The Amiga had a full preemptive multitasking graphical operating system before Windows 1.0 came out. Not even Mac's OS was on that level. But Amiga (previously Commodore) was bad in marketing. It just didn't put together it's company and production right.

 

Secondly, an incidental point is that I doubt very much we will make another 500 years. Civilization is on a trajectory of catastrophe.

I believe so too, and I believe religious dogmatism and extremism will be a contributing factor to our demise. I believe Christianity will be a big part in creating Armageddon (on purpose--you want it, you are going to make it happen--but no Jesus coming to save you).

[Ouroboros]

... My belief based on this internal state of mind is valid and true for me. This is not objective evidence for God. It is evidence for me though.

 

 

You've posited a false dilemma. I can both claim to believe with no objective evidence and still provide objective evidence. IOW, just because a person says they believe because of Y does not mean X is invalid per se. X still needs to be evaluated on it merits.

 

 

Neither of your statements are necessarily true. I may still need faith in order to believe in the things which have not been revealed through objective evidence, and I could clearly have faith in addition to knowledge acquired through other sources. They can be complementary and additive.

 

Honest discussion can involve both faith, subjective evidence and objective evidence.

 

So you're suggesting there are objective evidence, yet you believe only by subjective evidence because you can't find any objective evidence?

 

I'm not sure I follow completely. You said the evidence for you is not something objective, but then you argue that there are objective evidence for God. So why don't you believe because of the objective evidence you have? Why believe on the subjective evidence only, the second best, when you claim to have objective evidence? What is your objective evidence?