[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Do you know what, since you so disdain scientific theories, how about you test one of them? Why not test the theory of gravitation. You could do this in numerous ways, such as walking of a cliff or tall building. Since it’s just a theory in exactly the same way that evolution is just a theory you’ll probably float, magically. Just like your space god magically created everything.
[/quote]
I just love it when evolutionists attempt to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity, as if gravity is some indisputable fact with zero controversy surrounding it. For you, I have just two questions:
I really wish you’d actually go and read some scientific literature. It’s not hard to find. The wikipedia article is a reasonable place to start; Macroevolution - Wikipedia
EDIT: Really it comes down to this; if the evidence were to change, to support another theory, or to disprove evolution, I would follow it. Gladly.
You however are shown the evidence, and regardless of the overwhelming mass of it, stick to your own beliefs. And you know what, that’s fine. Just keep those beliefs to yourself. They have no place in the real world.[/quote]
This is the biggest problem with evolution, more specifically with evolutionists. You have openly admitted if evidence leads to a better theory, you would willfully dump evolution for the new theory. (Side note: how many times has the theory of evolution been revised since Darwin’s time?) Yet, you have completely disregarded the theory put forth by the creationist, with zero evidence to debunk it. Evolutions attempt to use their theory to completely rule out the existence of a higher being and intelligent design. It seems that you have failed to recognize that evolution does not answer the question of how we began, or shall I say how we were created, but simply how we have changed over time.
Evolution, if true, only answers a small part about our existence. Even the most ardent evolutionists can’t give much of an answer on how life started. Oddly enough, this is the only part that is realistically testable. If life starts spontaneously, we should be able to see it repeat, right?
I don’t see why an intelligent person who believes in God can’t just take the position that macroevolution is the method God has chosen to proliferate life. This position would neither deny faith in a creator, nor ignore the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution.
HERETIC! [/quote]
In this world there are splitters, and there are lumpers. I happen to like lumping better than splitting. I have never understood what an unquestioning, dogmatic belief in every last detail of a Bronze Age creation myth has to do with spiritual enlightenment, but I see no reason that an intelligent mind couldn’t accommodate both a belief in a higher being and an understanding of scientific fact.
Einstein was a Jew, and a rather clever fellow, as I understand it. I wonder if he believed, without question, in the creation myth of his people.
[quote]tedro wrote:This is the biggest problem with evolution, more specifically with evolutionists. You have openly admitted if evidence leads to a better theory, you would willfully dump evolution for the new theory. (Side note: how many times has the theory of evolution been revised since Darwin’s time?) Yet, you have completely disregarded the theory put forth by the creationist, with zero evidence to debunk it. Evolutions attempt to use their theory to completely rule out the existence of a higher being and intelligent design. It seems that you have failed to recognize that evolution does not answer the question of how we began, or shall I say how we were created, but simply how we have changed over time.
Evolution, if true, only answers a small part about our existence. Even the most ardent evolutionists can’t give much of an answer on how life started. Oddly enough, this is the only part that is realistically testable. If life starts spontaneously, we should be able to see it repeat, right?
[/quote]
The theory of evolution has been revised many, many times. It keeps getting better. What’s your point?
The reason why the rubbish put forward by creationists is disregarded is because it is NOT a scientific theory. The problem is zero evidence to support it, zero predictions possible, zero explanatory capabilities and zero modelling capabilities. Not “zero evidence to debunk it” (which is actually a lie).
I personally don’t know of any scientists who attempt to use evolution to rule out the existence of a higher being. Some may have come to that conclusion in the light of the overwhelming evidence, but there are plenty of religious biologists (“evolutionists” to use your term).
Your statement that I don’t recognise that evolution doesn’t explain how life started is completely and utterly ludicrous and also a lie. The study of how life started is called abiogenesis, and yes, evolution does not explain it, and yes abiogenesis is not as well studied and known about as evolution.
You are right, that if life started spontaneously we should be able to repeat it; there is no standard model, but experiments have been done where it is shown that amino acids can spontaneously form peptides and in the right atmosphere the creation of amino acids can be catalysed.
Either organic matter was created on the earth (terrestrial) or was extra terrestrial, but somehow, it happened.
Abiogenesis is one of the most exciting areas of science as we are getting very close to discovering how life started. As I said earlier, there are are fewer and fewer gaps for your god to hide in.
…You choose to ignore my primary contention: where is the observation that falsifies evolutionary theory?..
Doc, let’s switch things around a bit. Where is the observation that falsifies creation theory?
Really?
Where is the observation that falsifies the theory that the earth is pulled around the sun by an invisible space monkey charioteer?
Do you see my point? [/quote]
no I don’t silly man - it’s an INVISIBLE space monkey . . . .
Evolution starts with the pre-supposition that all there is to the universe is what is contained within the universe - why it exists or how it exists does not matter - it exists. They can imagine all sorts of hypotheses and parallel worlds,etc and they will pursue them with vigor and claim it is good scientific reasoning . . . but they will NOT under any circumstances allow for any type of a super-natural(beyond the physical world) interaction. This makes them intellectually dishonest from the outset for two reasons. 1. They willing discount a potential answer and will never allow for it consideration. and 2. they will ask what caused that up until the point where the best potential answer is the one they have already negated in the first point . . . they have a predetermined negative conclusion about any sort of supernatural force, power, presence - whatever - and because of that they either ignore the questions or move into circular reasoning about its actual characteristics. . .
They can believe energy/matter have always existed but they cannot believe that a power acting upon that energy/matter could also have always existed or could have created that energy/matter. They can hypothesis the universe back to a bog bang - but can;t hypothesis that the matter/energy did not cause itself - even though there has never been a single instance of anything having caused itself . . . They will say that we cannot test it, so we cannot know it - but at the same time there are all sorts of things about their theory that they cannot test and therefore cannot know - but they willing accept those as facts - and around and around the merry-go-round we go
…You choose to ignore my primary contention: where is the observation that falsifies evolutionary theory?..
Doc, let’s switch things around a bit. Where is the observation that falsifies creation theory?
Really?
Where is the observation that falsifies the theory that the earth is pulled around the sun by an invisible space monkey charioteer?
Do you see my point?
no I don’t silly man - it’s an INVISIBLE space monkey . . . .
Evolution starts with the pre-supposition that all there is to the universe is what is contained within the universe - why it exists or how it exists does not matter - it exists. They can imagine all sorts of hypotheses and parallel worlds,etc and they will pursue them with vigor and claim it is good scientific reasoning . . . but they will NOT under any circumstances allow for any type of a super-natural(beyond the physical world) interaction. This makes them intellectually dishonest from the outset for two reasons. 1. They willing discount a potential answer and will never allow for it consideration. and 2. they will ask what caused that up until the point where the best potential answer is the one they have already negated in the first point . . . they have a predetermined negative conclusion about any sort of supernatural force, power, presence - whatever - and because of that they either ignore the questions or move into circular reasoning about its actual characteristics. . .
They can believe energy/matter have always existed but they cannot believe that a power acting upon that energy/matter could also have always existed or could have created that energy/matter. They can hypothesis the universe back to a bog bang - but can;t hypothesis that the matter/energy did not cause itself - even though there has never been a single instance of anything having caused itself . . . They will say that we cannot test it, so we cannot know it - but at the same time there are all sorts of things about their theory that they cannot test and therefore cannot know - but they willing accept those as facts - and around and around the merry-go-round we go[/quote]
…oh hello. When has scientific research into evolution ever presumed that it should assertain the answer to the origins of the universe?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
The reason why the rubbish put forward by creationists is disregarded is because it is NOT a scientific theory. The problem is zero evidence to support it, zero predictions possible, zero explanatory capabilities and zero modelling capabilities. Not “zero evidence to debunk it” (which is actually a lie).
[/quote]
So you disregard it because it doesn’t fit your current definition of science? That sounds very naive and close-minded. Who claimed that it was a scientific theory anyways?
Yet throughout this thread you have attempted to debunk creationism by virtue of claiming that evolution is fact.
[quote]
Your statement that I don’t recognise that evolution doesn’t explain how life started is completely and utterly ludicrous and also a lie. The study of how life started is called abiogenesis, and yes, evolution does not explain it, and yes abiogenesis is not as well studied and known about as evolution.
You are right, that if life started spontaneously we should be able to repeat it; there is no standard model, but experiments have been done where it is shown that amino acids can spontaneously form peptides and in the right atmosphere the creation of amino acids can be catalysed.
Either organic matter was created on the earth (terrestrial) or was extra terrestrial, but somehow, it happened.
Abiogenesis is one of the most exciting areas of science as we are getting very close to discovering how life started. As I said earlier, there are are fewer and fewer gaps for your god to hide in.[/quote]
Let me get this straight then. You acknowledge evolution does not explain the beginning of life and also admit that you don’t know how life began. Abiogenesis, which should be repeatable but has not been repeated, has been all over the place in the last 100 years. We are no closer than we have ever been to creating life from inanimate objects, what makes you think that this is possible? With no supporting evidence and no ability to predict future discoveries (the two criterion you seem to put so much stock into) abiogenesis truely is still in the hypothetical stage.
[quote]tedro wrote:
I just love it when evolutionists attempt to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity, as if gravity is some indisputable fact with zero controversy surrounding it. For you, I have just two questions:
What is gravity?
How does it happen?[/quote]
Evolution is actually a more complete theory than gravitation.
Gravitation is the acceleration of intertial bodies in a curved path cause by an area of mass or lots of energy which causes a local curvature in space-time.
Einstein’s thought experiment is always helpful; if you are in a space ship pressing down on the seat you wouldn’t be able to tell if you were accelerating, or if you were stationary in a gravitational field.
There are, of course, anomalies, such as the fact that our universe’s expansion appears to be accelerating, and a better theory of gravitation will hopefully account for this (if that is the case) and others.
…oh hello. When has scientific research into evolution ever presumed that it should assertain the answer to the origins of the universe?
[/quote]
. . . Uh, helloo, when has scientific research into the origin of life in the universe ever presumed that it should stop short of finding the origin of life in the universe . . .
[quote]tedro wrote:
So you disregard it because it doesn’t fit your current definition of science? That sounds very naive and close-minded. Who claimed that it was a scientific theory anyways?
[/quote]
It’s not my definition. It’s THE definition. There is only one scientific method. I suggest you look it up, because it’s currently the best method we have for gaining logic. Every time you get in a car or a plane and they don’t suddenly break, you have the scientific method to thank, not “my” scientific method.
This is not naive and close minded, in fact one of the grounds for the scientific method is an open mind, leading to new discoveries.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Yet throughout this thread you have attempted to debunk creationism by virtue of claiming that evolution is fact.
[/quote]
Yes, because it is a fact.
Lets get this clear, there are two senses;
A. Evolution, the observable fact (for instance when diseases adapt to drugs)
B. Evolution the scientific theory, which has such a wealth of supporting evidence, that it is considered to be a fact (although no theory in science is ever “proved”)
[quote]tedro wrote:
Let me get this straight then. You acknowledge evolution does not explain the beginning of life and also admit that you don’t know how life began. Abiogenesis, which should be repeatable but has not been repeated, has been all over the place in the last 100 years. We are no closer than we have ever been to creating life from inanimate objects, what makes you think that this is possible? With no supporting evidence and no ability to predict future discoveries (the two criterion you seem to put so much stock into) abiogenesis truely is still in the hypothetical stage.[/quote]
Of course I acknowledge that, it’s not within the grounds of the theory.
And no, I don’t know, nor do I pretend to know by inventing magic beings to account for it.
Just because we have not repeated it, does not mean we won’t. If you’ll care to re-read what I wrote before you’ll find enough information with which to research abiogenesis and see the improvements and progress made.
And yes, there are many hypotheses for how abiogenesis started, what’s your point? I’m not clinging to any one in particular and saying “THIS IS THE ONE” because there isn’t enough evidence for me to do that. This is how science works. It is fine for things to be in the hypothetical stage you know, otherwise how would we ever learn more?
…oh hello. When has scientific research into evolution ever presumed that it should assertain the answer to the origins of the universe?
. . . Uh, helloo, when has scientific research into the origin of life in the universe ever presumed that it should stop short of finding the origin of life in the universe . . .
[/quote]
…scientific research into evolution is NOT about assertaining the origins of life, but about the mechanisms behind how life adapts to its environment. Is that clear enough for you?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
tedro wrote:
I just love it when evolutionists attempt to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity, as if gravity is some indisputable fact with zero controversy surrounding it. For you, I have just two questions:
What is gravity?
How does it happen?
Evolution is actually a more complete theory than gravitation.
Gravitation is the acceleration of intertial bodies in a curved path cause by an area of mass or lots of energy which causes a local curvature in space-time.
Einstein’s thought experiment is always helpful; if you are in a space ship pressing down on the seat you wouldn’t be able to tell if you were accelerating, or if you were stationary in a gravitational field.
There are, of course, anomalies, such as the fact that our universe’s expansion appears to be accelerating, and a better theory of gravitation will hopefully account for this (if that is the case) and others.
[/quote]
So in other words you don’t know how gravity works. No big deal, neither do I or anyone else on this planet. Perhaps then, a better example is due to illustrate the strength of a “theory” in regards to evolution?
It happens, we know it happens and have good reason to believe it will continue to happen, but nobody knows how or why.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
tedro wrote:
I just love it when evolutionists attempt to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity, as if gravity is some indisputable fact with zero controversy surrounding it. For you, I have just two questions:
What is gravity?
How does it happen?
Evolution is actually a more complete theory than gravitation.
Gravitation is the acceleration of intertial bodies in a curved path cause by an area of mass or lots of energy which causes a local curvature in space-time.
Einstein’s thought experiment is always helpful; if you are in a space ship pressing down on the seat you wouldn’t be able to tell if you were accelerating, or if you were stationary in a gravitational field.
There are, of course, anomalies, such as the fact that our universe’s expansion appears to be accelerating, and a better theory of gravitation will hopefully account for this (if that is the case) and others.
So in other words you don’t know how gravity works. No big deal, neither do I or anyone else on this planet. Perhaps then, a better example is due to illustrate the strength of a “theory” in regards to evolution?
It happens, we know it happens and have good reason to believe it will continue to happen, but nobody knows how or why.[/quote]
…that is true. However, claiming God did it does not answer the question either, BUT, the theory of evolution and scientific research in general may find the answer in the future. A real answer that is, not a belief [=accepted as truth in the absence of evidence]. Thank you, i feel better now…
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
It’s not my definition. It’s THE definition. There is only one scientific method. I suggest you look it up, because it’s currently the best method we have for gaining logic. Every time you get in a car or a plane and they don’t suddenly break, you have the scientific method to thank, not “my” scientific method.
This is not naive and close minded, in fact one of the grounds for the scientific method is an open mind, leading to new discoveries.
[/quote]
Is it that open mind that leads you to dismiss ID at face value?
This is your very problem. You admit that you don’t know how life began, yet you mock those that suggest God may have had a helping hand. You have no evidence to disprove this, yet insist that the presence of evolution itself excludes any God or ID. How are you so certain that the current scientific method is capable of answering all these questions? What agenda do you have that causes you to mock those that believe God did indeed play some part? Do you feel threatened?
Frankly, I have much more respect for creationists, even the 6000 year-old earth, Adam & Eve descendants crowd, than I do for evolutionists that have so much faith in their theory that the very presence of it allows them to reject the existence of any being greater than themselves.
…oh hello. When has scientific research into evolution ever presumed that it should assertain the answer to the origins of the universe?
. . . Uh, helloo, when has scientific research into the origin of life in the universe ever presumed that it should stop short of finding the origin of life in the universe . . .
…scientific research into evolution is NOT about assertaining the origins of life, but about the mechanisms behind how life adapts to its environment. Is that clear enough for you?
[/quote]
So Darwin’s title - “ORIGIN of the Species” was a mistake? j/k
All your doing is proving my point - species evolution fits your narrow little definition very well - but as we have been discussing the theory of evolution, it is not discussed in a vacuum - it encompasses an entire lineage of scientific explanations that seek to support it.
You cannot have inter-species evolution if all of the species appeared independently of each other - so in order to support species evolution, you would need to prove that species did not appear independently, thus you HAVE TO go to the very first appearance of life and explain its progression from first appearance to its current stage THUS, . . . follow carefully . . . you have to explain the origin of life in order to be able to have evolution!! Tu DUH!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So Darwin’s title - “ORIGIN of the Species” was a mistake? j/k
[/quote]
It was actually “on the origin of species” and by that he meant the diversification of life. This is very basic stuff to know if you want to argue intelligently in this area.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
So Darwin’s title - “ORIGIN of the Species” was a mistake? j/k
It was actually “on the origin of species” and by that he meant the diversification of life. This is very basic stuff to know if you want to argue intelligently in this area.
I’ll leave ephrem to the rest.[/quote]
wow - what an amazing response for an offhand joke . . . your mom must be proud . . . here let me give you some more ammo for your amazing intellectual clarity . . .
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Darwin 1: It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees.
Darwin 2: The fittest chickens cross the road.
Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking.
One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin’s The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, “Why are you reading both those books”? “Well,” said the orangutan, “I just wanted to know if I was my brother’s keeper or my keeper’s brother.”
A fossil is an extinct animal. The older it is, the more extinct it is.
If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million years.
Did you hear about the biologist who had twins? She baptized one and kept the other as a control.
One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The Darwinian walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest.” To which the Darwinian happily agreed.
God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The Darwinian said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!”
[quote]tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Wanna know a secret? This happens ALL THE TIME! Our understand of Chemistry has been majority altered three times since I began studying chem. What I learned in High School has been changed, and what I learn now in Uni is quite different in a sense.
I actually laughed when I read this. Your understanding of chemistry may have changed, but the understanding in the scientific community has not seen major changes in that time.
You probably started out with some simple Lewis structures in high school and everything was simple and swell. Match up a couple of valence electrons and you were good to go, right? Then you get to college and find out electrons really are contained in nice little orbitals. They just rotate around that nucleus and hope to bump into another atom so that they can get that magic number of 8 electrons. Life’s still good and chemistry’s as simple as can be.[/quote]
Actually no. I wasn’t referring to simplification. I was referring to quantum mechanics, which was been seriously altered in the last few years. Our understanding of quantum mechanics has changed drastically in the last decade alone. And it is still changing.
[quote]
But now you’ve taken a bit of organic chem, haven’t you? A few weeks in there and your whole world’s been turned upside down. Electrons aren’t in any orbit at all. Suddenly they aren’t simply a particle but are a wave at the same time, and we actually don’t have a clue where they reside in the atom at any given time. What’s more is that some guy named Schrodinger is telling you that you can use the energy of the electron to figure out where it probably is. Huh?
This has all been around for nearly 100 years. Chemistry may have changed in your little world as your knowledge grew, but the currently accepted mainstream theories have not.[/quote]
Once again, none of this is what I was talking about. I’m not talking the basics. I’m talking the way we understand electron interaction as a whole. I personally don’t understand it, but the changes have been explained to me to Chem majors. They’re very excited about it all!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
You conveniently left out the part that says a theory is testable and has been tested - repeatedly. By its very nature macroevolution is not testable so it fails to ascend from hypothesis.
It may be the best explanation out there sans creation and therefore deserving of its strong following by those who abhor the thought of a mighty, omnipotent God but that in and of itself is not enough to propel it from a weak hypothesis to a fact.
Varq, do not err in this respect again because…well, trust me…my rifle can shoot farther than yours…I won’t have to be very stealthy to sneak up on you…
You’re still getting it confused. If it helps, think of a theory as a model; it is used to explain things. It can also be used to describe things, and to make predictions.
To quote Stephen Hawking; “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”
Based on this definition, evolution is a superb theory.
Now the scientific method works like this; you can never prove a theory, but if you find one thing wrong with it, you can disprove. So find me one thing wrong with Evolution that comes from a credible scientific source. I gave you the example of a rabbit in the precambrian earlier.
We are both hitting on the central misunderstanding of biology theory: it is testable and it is falsifiable and it may not be verifiable.
You want to talk “biology theory” and its testability? Fine. You want to talk microevolution and its testability? Fine. You want to talk macroevolution and its testability? Unfine. You can’t do it. Saying you can is not doing it. You cannot find and test transitions above, say the family level, Doc. You can’t do it and neither can anybody anywhere. It’s never been done.
Because Pushharder demands a verifable proof, he will never be satisfied with our evidence–whether Tiltaalik or archeopteryx or cytochrome c evolution–however much it supports, confirms, is compatible with or gives credence to evolution.
You of all people should not be citing archeopteryx as a support and confirmation for the credence of evolution. Good grief.
Until then, I respect him as I respect doubters everywhere: an unchallenged truth is not worth defending.
There are doubters on both sides of the issue. If anyone, and I’m not pointing the finger at you, haughtily proclaims their unflinching view in a dogmatic manner on an issue that cannot be objectively analyzed without some degree of faith then they are guilty. Guilty of the very thing they so detest in the opposing side.
But you need to be challenged on your assessment of macroevolutionary theory as “truth”. You cannot claim truth in this matter. You are talking about an issue that happened in the distant past, i.e. history, if it happened at all. If it is still happening in the present as many claim, it is happening so slowly and imperceptibly that it cannot be measured. It cannot be tested. This is unchallengeable.
[Edit] If you beg to differ then make it simple and cite the experiments where for example an ocelot was observed to have bred with a wild boar and produced offspring. Or would you prefer to cite the successful breeding even if done in vitro of a sea snake and a flounder? How about a beetle with a spider? A pollination of a hibiscus by a ponderosa pine? A mating of a human with a chimp? (Oooh we’d better not touch that one)
You choose to ignore my primary contention: where is the observation that falsifies evolutionary theory?
Do the carpal bones of Tiltaalik conform to evolutionary theory, or disprove it?
What exactly about the archeopteryx disproves evolution?
Where is the material evidence?
Certainly the experiment I would offer does not involve bizaare hybridizations, because that is not what evolution proposes as its primary engine.
Push wants an experiment. I might choose the following: now that we can evaluate the genomes of the species, I could disprove evolution if genomic concordance was a random events among the species and phyla. So, for example, humans are largely concordant with bonobos and those randy chimps, less so with orangs, less so with lemurs, or cows. And what a marvelous coinicidence: the particular paleogenetics of each species’ vital enzymes (for example, cytochrome c) mirrors precisely this concordance.
Now these observations don’t prove the theory, but the theory has been tested so, and it is not found false. The theory explains the findings quite nicely. And ID does not, unless it violates that razor of Occam/Ockham, ten thousand times over.
If you have not done so, you may like this one:
A great story of a diligent observer with brilliant insights.
And I still do not understand the evolution of the ammonites.
Look Doc, there’s no doubt that experiments can be performed where the outcome fits the model. What has often been the case though and you KNOW this to be true is that some if not many experiments are designed from the outset to fit the theory and not in any kind of objective way. If they happen not to they are dismissed from view. They are not announced. Swept under the rug. Am I wrong?[/quote]
Actually, yes, you are.
Negative trials are not publishedf frequently in medicine. But in the natural sciences, conflicting information is very often published. It is how the writer gets attention and grants.
In my example, your complaint is tht this thought experiment is tautologic–the method predicts the outcome. But this is not the case, since the paleogenetic information is decades old, and the genomic info is only a few years old. These are observations, and not manipulations of fact.