Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coffeesippin

Hijack from Can you believe in evolution and in god?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

While not wrong this specifically refers one specific mechanism, namely natural selection. While this was probably the first recognized mechanism, it is not the only one. In fact I think looking at the expected outcome makes it easier to argue why evolution is the expected outcome. Specifically when we talk about evolution we mean that the genetic composition of a given population is not static. The reason are those that you mentioned, but can also include stochastic effects. Especially in small population random elimination of individuals from the pool, regardless of their genetic composition (and thus, inheritable aspect of reproductive success) can shift the gene pool significantly. As such there are only few situations where you do not expect evolution to happen (e.g. the population being in a Hardy-Weinberg equlibrium).

 

 

What effects do changes in DNA RNA through, for instance, radiation from the sun have on evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

       "So it would actually take divine intervention to stop evolution happening."   This is preaching, by a moderator, nice to see, but something I've been utterly condemned for on this forum even though I've never been so outright in a statement of preaching, and even though I don't consider any of my statements preaching.  But this is preaching.   Is moderator opposition to my position here due to a conflict of theologies instead of a desire to inhibit mixing science and theology?   The moderator who did the preaching knows who he is, and what his religious affiliation is, because there is obviously an affiliation for him to preach. Does he/she see me as an opponent of his/her religious affiliation, a threat to his/her theology?  I have no idea .. and I won't outright name the moderator as if I have a personal vendetta.  Can we please drop the prejudices that blind our minds? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

"So it would actually take divine intervention to stop evolution happening."   This is preaching

I don't see why you think it is preaching. (Not every mention of god is preaching). It is just pointing out the inevitability of evolution, given the nature of the word we live in. (That world was, according your belief system, created by a god; so I don't think you should dismiss the fantastic things and processes that exist in that world.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Good point.

In previous versions of this argument I have also included "a source of new variation" as another requirement. 

I'm not sure I see much benefit in conflating the two; they happen on such different scales, rely on different mechanisms, with different levels of complexity.

Of course, ultimately everything is just physics. But trying to explain the function of an MPEG player in terms of electron-hole mobility in semiconductors probably isn't useful.

It doesn't say that, as far as I can see. It uses "ape" as a shorthand for "non-human ape". It says: "Both humans and apes belong to a group of primates known as the Hominoidea."

Hominoidea: "Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia. ... There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes. ... The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, includes three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

But whether humans are grouped with apes or not doesn't rally make any difference. As the article points out, we have a common ancestor.

I don't think "believe" is really appropriate to either of these. One can accept the scientific evidence or reject it. I suspect that only rejecting it counts as a belief/faith based act.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

"I don't think "believe" is really appropriate to either of these. One can accept the scientific evidence or reject it. I suspect that only rejecting it counts as a belief/faith based act."

The automatic merging of replies makes for some confusion.  Is there a way to avoid it?

be·lieve
/bəˈlēv/
verb
 
  1. 1.
    accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
    "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"
    synonyms: be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful More
     
  2. 2.
    hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
    "I believe we've already met"
     
           I cannot accept BB as the truth, as I have doubts regarding the science involved in it.  Therefore I can't believe in BB even though it is possible for it to be true.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

 I cannot accept BB as the truth, as I have doubts regarding the science involved in it.  Therefore I can't believe in BB even though it is possible for it to be true.

I am assuming this is the only part of that post that was yours (it doesn't look like it came from the definition of "believe" :) )

it would be interesting to know which parts of the evidence for the expanding universe you doubt: cosmological red-shift? Or the CMB? Or what? And to tie this in with the topic of the thread (so the other mods don't get mad at me!) can you explain why either of those conflicts with your belief in god?

And the only scientific alternative to the expanding universe, that I am aware of, are the various static or quasi-static models of an eternal universe proposed by Hoyle et al. But, apart from being falsified, those models would seem to conflict with your theology more than an expanding universe does. 

So what model of the universe do you prefer and why? (Hopefully we can keep this polite and on-topic ....)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't see why you think it is preaching. (Not every mention of god is preaching). It is just pointing out the inevitability of evolution, given the nature of the word we live in. (That world was, according your belief system, created by a god; so I don't think you should dismiss the fantastic things and processes that exist in that world.)

     It's stronger preaching than I've heard in most bible believing gatherings I've attended lately, which is one reason I don't attend often.  I was happy to see it here.  It's the fantastic things and processes in our existence that confirm the existence of God to me .. that is preaching also, following your pattern.  My interest in science began before I believed in God, but was enhanced by my belief.  The creation stories in Genesis match my understanding of the scientific realities involved, it's just that you aren't willing to give my understandings consideration because you have a nearly impossible time going beyond Consensus.  I believe the biblical miracles can be explained by science .. Christ walking on water appears easy to explain for someone who has knowledge of effects in physics.  Science is FASCINATING to me partly because of the miracles.  The universe is FASCINATING to me because of its spectacular realities and beauty .. I believe science can explain those realities and beauties.  Science, I believe, can reveal the processes God used and is using.  

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am assuming this is the only part of that post that was yours (it doesn't look like it came from the definition of "believe" :) )

it would be interesting to know which parts of the evidence for the expanding universe you doubt: cosmological red-shift? Or the CMB? Or what? And to ties this in with the topic of the thread (so the other mods don't get mad at me!) can you explain why either of those conflicts with your belief in god?

And the only scientific alternative to the expanding universe, that I am aware of, are the various static or quasi-static models of an eternal universe proposed by Hoyle et al. But, apart from being falsified, those models would seem to conflict with your theology more than an expanding universe does. 

So what model of the universe do you prefer and why? (Hopefully we can keep this polite and on-topic ....)

 

      Okay, now I see, said the man wearing glasses, myself, as the originator of confusion.  I appreciate your invitation to discuss.  

When in a post made several days ago, that I said 'expansion' was an add-on to BB to prove it, I meant to say Inflation.  It may have been you who reminded me of the difference, and I acknowledged the difference, and was thankful for the correction, but you may have missed that acknowledgement.   I'm becoming forgetful of words as I age. 

You may not think highly of what I write here, you may find much of it ludicrous, but you asked.  I believe in the expansion of the universe because of scientific evidence, so was not surprised when the bible declared it: 'the heavens and the earth flee away from the face of God.'  Revelation 20:21  It may have been one of the strongest evidences to support my belief that the bible is itself a scientific book.  I'm not surprised that Jesus walked on water because of anti-gravity, positive-negative, etc.

I do not believe in BB partly because Pascual Jordan offered an alternative, quantum fluctuations, matter arising from absolutely nothing instead of a singularity, that formula which stunned Einstein as he was walking across a street, bringing traffic to a halt to avoid hitting him.  You may have seen the post on this I made yesterday.  There is also no statement in the bible that says God used something to create, other than his own Word.

A sprinkling of quantum fluctuations across space time, or the sprinkling creating spacetime, somewhat as a sower seeds a field, is my opinion.  With stars arising from nothing, no Matter whatever, as Jordan's formula demonstrates.   My personal view of the mechanism causing the expansion of the universe is anti-gravity void bubbles growing larger and larger pushing on matter perhaps on spacetime itself, as is evidenced pushing our own galaxy or group of galaxies I can't recall which.   As the anti-matter void bubbles expand their cumulative effects multiply, accounting for the increased rate of expansion.   The bubbles would account for the compression of matter into the filaments of matter demonstrated in the universe.   I believe that what are considered Black Holes may actually be wormholes feeding matter which is converted into anti-matter into the void bubbles.  (the Italian scientist theorized anti-gravity void bubbles, can't think of his name, but I'll post this, look for that information.)  

You'll see that while my opinions are based on what Consensus considers unorthodox the science involved is becoming more accepted, and the Vector gravity theory is one example.  

I'll post this, and look for the Italian guy.   I thought of anti-gravity bubbles seemingly before D-Amico, or at least before he published, and I wasn't surprised in the least when his work appeared.  

https://phys.org/news/2011-04-antigravity-dark-energy-universe-expansion.html

 

Edited by coffeesippin
Included the Italian guy's link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I believe the biblical miracles can be explained by science

Are you using a different definition from the usual e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Quote

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[2] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint, or a religious leader.

Is there a scientific explanation for this miracle? (i.e. pi=3)

 
Quote

 

Kings 7:23 King James

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Are you using a different definition from the usual e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Is there a scientific explanation for this miracle? (i.e. pi=3)

 

 

Somewhat different, the miracles in the bible are empowered by faith in God, but I believe the mechanisms can be found in science.   One thing Jesus mentions is 'If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, this mountain will be removed and cast into the sea.'   That is not a symbolic mountain, but a physical mountain.  Matter-anti-matter energies might account for a mountain lifting up and flying through the air into the sea.  Fantastic, yes, but so was Jesus walking on water.  Simply throw a switch, by faith, and opposing polarities may take effect.  I don't know a lot about polarities though.  I know very little about natural laws, but I know they are not immutable.  

Edited by coffeesippin
Added the word 'may' before 'take effect.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I believe in the expansion of the universe because of scientific evidence,

But:

41 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I do not believe in BB

You are contradicting yourself.

The big bang model is a model that describes a universe that is expanding and, hence, can be traced back to an early hot, dense state.

So is the the early hot, dense state that you disagree with? But the evidence is there for that. That is why it is part of the model.

 

44 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Pascual Jordan offered an alternative, quantum fluctuations, matter arising from absolutely nothing instead of a singularity, that formula which stunned Einstein as he was walking across a street, bringing traffic to a halt to avoid hitting him.

Is there any evidence for matter arising from nothing? I don't think so. (This was one of the ideas behind Hoyle's quasi-steady state model and there was no evidence for it then.)

Note that Jordan also thought that the Earth is expanding, so I wouldn't take all of his ideas too seriously.

 

46 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

My personal view of the mechanism causing the expansion of the universe is anti-gravity void bubbles

You had better drop that line of discussion, unless you want to start a new thread in Speculations and provide evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

But:

You are contradicting yourself.

The big bang model is a model that describes a universe that is expanding and, hence, can be traced back to an early hot, dense state.

So is the the early hot, dense state that you disagree with? But the evidence is there for that. That is why it is part of the model.

 

Is there any evidence for matter arising from nothing? I don't think so. (This was one of the ideas behind Hoyle's quasi-steady state model and there was no evidence for it then.)

Note that Jordan also thought that the Earth is expanding, so I wouldn't take all of his ideas too seriously.

 

You had better drop that line of discussion, unless you want to start a new thread in Speculations and provide evidence.

 

During these discussions we can sometimes read emotion into something written when it isn't there.  We can avoid that by sticking to the words written.

"In the 1930s, Pascual Jordan knew that a star could equal zero energy because its matter energy was positive and its gravitational energy was negative and they cancelled each other out. And this led him to speculate what would prevent a quantum transition from creating a new star. And he had this idea because he was trying to figure out where matter might come from if we existed in an always-here universe. Jordan's formula for that so stunned Einstein that he stopped dead in his tracks in the middle of street, bringing traffic to a halt to avoid hitting him.  The basic formula (though not in math) is on my home computer, I'm not home.  

I've never seen anywhere that Jordan thought the earth was expanding.  

You believe in that model.  I don't.  I believe the origin of that model is based on the primitive idea than an explosion is necessary to cause matter to fly apart.  That assumption coloured most thought about expansion.   Anti-gravity bubble expansion causing the expansion goes beyond that.

What evidence would I have to present to start a thread in speculation?  I looked into that already and it seems prohibitive, especially considering speculation is just that, if there was evidence it wouldn't be speculation.   What evidence do you have to present to confirm your statement that Jordan thought the earth was/is expanding?

Jordan was eminent.

Pascual Jordan’s  colleagues — Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Fermi, Dirac, and Wigner — were all awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. But not Jordan.He was nominated twice in the 1920’s by Einstein, but Heisenberg and Born considered Jordan more of a mathematician than a physicist — hurting his chances. In addition, Jordan suffered from a severe stammer, limiting his ability to communicate to a wider audience.

Jordan’s mentor, Max Born, was awarded the Nobel in physics in 1954 for his early work in quantum mechanics. Had it not been for his Nazi past, Pascual Jordan most likely would have received the award along with Born.

Eugene Wigner proposed Jordan for the Nobel once more in 1979, but it was given to Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg for unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces — the winners were “three practitioners of the art that Jordan had invented” according to physicist Engelbert Schucking; Jordan died less than a year later at age 78.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

What evidence do you have to present to confirm your statement that Jordan thought the earth was/is expanding?

Maybe this one?

Jordan, P. (1971), The expanding earth: some consequences of Dirac's gravitation hypothesis, Oxford: Pergamon Press

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2018 at 10:33 AM, zapatos said:

I'm wondering why the Catholic Church says they have no problem with Evolution. Do you think maybe because they don't take the Bible literally? They certainly 'believe' in the Bible.

It certainly makes a mockery of the bible. The simple fact is that they rightly realise that the BB theory of the evolution of the universe, along with the evolution of life, has so much going for them, and so much overwhelmingly loads of evidence supporting both theories, that in reality, it would be absurd to deny or reject either. But then obviously they insert the old "god of the gaps"  to explain the "before the BB" and/or whatever the true definition of "nothing" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Maybe this one?

Jordan, P. (1971), The expanding earth: some consequences of Dirac's gravitation hypothesis, Oxford: Pergamon Press

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

 

Ghideon .. thank you thank you thank you.   It shows a huge scientific interest in the question including this:    Paul Dirac suggested in 1938 that the universal gravitational constant had decreased in the billions of years of its existence. This led German physicist Pascual Jordan to a modification of general relativity and to propose in 1964 that all planets slowly expand. Contrary to most of the other explanations this one was at least within the framework of physics considered as a viable hypothesis.[23]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

You believe in that model.  I don't. 

But:

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

I believe in the expansion of the universe because of scientific evidence

So you are contradicting yourself again.

 

14 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I believe the origin of that model is based on the primitive idea than an explosion is necessary to cause matter to fly apart. 

Wrong way round. The expansion came first (derived from GR by, among others, Lemaitre who was a physicist and RC priest). The fact that galaxies are moving apart from one another was the initial evidence for that expansion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beecee said:

It certainly makes a mockery of the bible. The simple fact is that they rightly realise that the BB theory of the evolution of the universe, along with the evolution of life, has so much going for them, and so much overwhelmingly loads of evidence supporting both theories, that in reality, it would be absurd to deny or reject either. But then obviously they insert the old "god of the gaps"  to explain the "before the BB" and/or whatever the true definition of "nothing" is.

 The bible does not say evolution did not happen.  I've studied it for 41 years and I see that nowhere in the bible.  The length of days in the Genesis creation were divided into light and darkness .. not hourly periods .. the evenings and the mornings could have been tens of millions of years.  In fact take it or leave it Genesis says the sun was not made until I think it was the fourth day.   '0' is an impossible number in physical reality.  If '0' was real, we would not be here, because nothing is nothing unto infinity.  '0' is merely a place marker, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, coffeesippin said:

The bible does not say evolution did not happen. 

Quite. I'm not sure why some religious people think it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

Quite. I'm not sure why some religious people think it does.

I'm not sure why some scientists can't get beyond consensus, either.  It's been proven wrong many time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

 The bible does not say evolution did not happen. 

I didn't say that. I said the edict from the Catholic church re the BB and evolution of life, being compatible with the church's teachings, makes the bible a book of fairy tales. [well I didn't exactly say that, but that is what I meant in different words.] 

You need to concern yourself with why the Catholic church finds no conflict with both the evolution of life and the BB.  

3 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I'm not sure why some scientists can't get beyond consensus, either.  It's been proven wrong many time.

And when it is shown to be wrong, science and scientists move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I'm not sure why some scientists can't get beyond consensus, either.  It's been proven wrong many time.

That also sounds contradictory: they can't get past the consensus but frequently they do. (And it has happened several times in my lifetime). But lets not take this any further off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Wrong way round. The expansion came first (derived from GR by, among others, Lemaitre who was a physicist and RC priest). The fact that galaxies are moving apart from one another was the initial evidence for that expansion.

Yep, that's the thing....The BB and GR actually compliment each other and go together like a hand in a glove. [I was actually going to use a more crass analogy but gave myself an uppercut instead :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

But:

So you are contradicting yourself again.

 

Wrong way round. The expansion came first (derived from GR by, among others, Lemaitre who was a physicist and RC priest). The fact that galaxies are moving apart from one another was the initial evidence for that expansion.

 

I believe in the expansion of the universe because of scientific evidence

So you are contradicting yourself again.

              No .. anti gravity expansion is a valid scientific theory.   Published and peer reviewed.  Explains why our galaxy or group is moving in a certain way.

 

  20 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I believe the origin of that model is based on the primitive idea than an explosion is necessary to cause matter to fly apart. 

Wrong way round. The expansion came first (derived from GR by, among others, Lemaitre who was a physicist and RC priest). The fact that galaxies are moving apart from one another was the initial evidence for that expansion.

     Yes, Redshift indicated the galaxies were flying apart .. yet not all the galaxies, some were flying towards each other, but as a general rule the groups of galaxies seem to be flying apart, expanding the universe.    What caused that flying apart and expansion that was shown by GR?  AHA!! IT has to be an explosion!!  Because we have all seen explosions.  We have not seen the effects of anti-gravity bubbles pushing the galaxies apart .. so it is more difficult to accept.  

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

I didn't say that. I said the edict from the Catholic church re the BB and evolution of life, being compatible with the church's teachings, makes the bible a book of fairy tales. [well I didn't exactly say that, but that is what I meant in different words.] 

You need to concern yourself with why the Catholic church finds no conflict with both the evolution of life and the BB.  

And when it is shown to be wrong, science and scientists move on.

I'm not a RC.  I'm not a Protestant.  I'm not a JW.  I believe and think as I understand the bible, not according to what someone tells me.  And if you take a thing like BB and Evolution as your whole opinion of the bible you're missing out on what I estimate roughly to be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of what it's all about.  But that's just a rough estimate, not calculated, I say with a chuckle.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yep, that's the thing....The BB and GR actually compliment each other and go together like a hand in a glove. [I was actually going to use a more crass analogy but gave myself an uppercut instead :P

No sense punishing yourself, someone will come along and do it for you, so learn to box defensively, not to harm others, just to avoid damage to your face.  I say with a chuckle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

  

I'm not a RC.  I'm not a Protestant.  I'm not a JW.  I believe and think as I understand the bible, not according to what someone tells me.  And if you take a thing like BB and Evolution as your whole opinion of the bible you're missing out on what I estimate roughly to be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of what it's all about.  But that's just a rough estimate, not calculated, I say with a chuckle.

No sense punishing yourself, someone will come along and do it for you, so learn to box defensively, not to harm others, just to avoid damage to your face.  I say with a chuckle.

The Bible can be shown to be wrong about everything it asserts about reality that can be tested. The bible is not 99.99999% right about reality. In fact the bible or any other religious text has never been able to come forward and correct science but science has corrected everything asserted about reality by the bible... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, coffeesippin said:

              No .. anti gravity expansion is a valid scientific theory.  

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

So you are contradicting yourself again.

              No .. anti gravity expansion is a valid scientific theory.   Published and peer reviewed.  Explains why our galaxy or group is moving in a certain way.

 

 

Is it? Hmmmm...Maybe you mean that this so called "anti gravity"is an explanation as to why the expansion rate is accelerating. Why the universe is expanding is an entirely different question, and probably explained as due to momentum, as created in the first moments of the BB itself.

     

Quote

Yes, Redshift indicated the galaxies were flying apart .. yet not all the galaxies, some were flying towards each other, but as a general rule the groups of galaxies seem to be flying apart, expanding the universe.   

The universal expansion is seen over large scales. Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies and even larger, gravity decouples us from any expansion. The same way the EMF, and strong and weak nuclear forces prevent planets, you and me from flying apart.

16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

 

I'm not a RC.  I'm not a Protestant.  I'm not a JW.  I believe and think as I understand the bible, not according to what someone tells me.  And if you take a thing like BB and Evolution as your whole opinion of the bible you're missing out on what I estimate roughly to be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of what it's all about.

I don't believe I am missing out on anything, since the bible itself is myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

No .. anti gravity expansion is a valid scientific theory.   Published and peer reviewed.  Explains why our galaxy or group is moving in a certain way.

It may be published but that doesn't mean it is correct. It is based on an assumption about antimatter that has not yet been tested (although so far results are against it). It also depends on some unknown mechanism for hiding large quantities of antimatter.

32 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

What caused that flying apart and expansion that was shown by GR?  AHA!! IT has to be an explosion!!  Because we have all seen explosions

It definitely was not an explosion. We can be sure of that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

What caused that flying apart and expansion that was shown by GR?  AHA!! IT has to be an explosion!!  Because we have all seen explosions.  We have not seen the effects of anti-gravity bubbles pushing the galaxies apart .. so it is more difficult to accept. 

Strange has said it twice now, and you missed it both times. The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please rethink your premise, if this is why you don't "believe" the evidence supporting BBT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.